FIR/T ANNlVERJARy ISSUE
*7 ransS isters
‘Ifie Joumat of ‘Transsexual feminism
Should Preoperative transsexual Women
Be Allowed to Attend the Mew Woman
Conference?: Conflicting Views
Plus: Transsexuals at Stonewall 25 • She’s Baaa-aack!:
Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire reissued •
Transsexuals Allowed to Enter MWMF • and more
Issue # 6
ftutumn 1994
CfransSisters*
fThe Journal of^rarussaijuU feminism
4004 Troost Avenue
%ansas City, Missouri 64110
(816) 753-7816
davinaanne@aoL com.
"v
‘Publisher / ‘Editor.
Daz/ina flnne CjaBricf
Staff Writers:
Christine ‘Beatty
%aiee Chinquapin
‘Dallas Denny
• Vavina Anne gabriel
Margaret Deirdre O'tHartigan
‘RychelPollacf^
Mustang Salty
HtpftAnne Wilchins
Staff Cartoonist:
Diana green
Contributing Writers
‘This Issue:
Merissa Sherrill Lynn
Denise 9forris
Lynn ‘Elizabeth Walter
Janis Walworth
Jessica Meredith Xavier
Cover photo: Participants in the second annual New
Woman Conference, Essex, Massachusetts;
September 1992: (back row, 1-r): Kathryn Freshley,
Wendi Pierce, Merissa Sherrill Lynn, Rena
Swifthawk, Elizabeth Neal, Angela Wensley, Rachel
Pollack, Susan Cocker, Katherine Hawkins, Sr. Mary
Elizabeth. Gwyneth Hannaford; (front row, 1-r):
Wendi Kaiser, Christina Y oung. Nancy Burkholder.
Janis Walworth, Diane Vanden-Broek, Anne
Ogbom, Renee Guilmette, Georgette Cardano
Statement of Purpose
In recognition of the fact that transsexual persons have been
systematically silenced, marginalized, maligned and even brutal-
ized, not only within mainstream society, but also even within
feminist philosophy and culture,
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual Feminism has been
created to further the process of defining ourselves and creating
our own reality, rather than allowing others to do so.
As such, Transsisters is committed toward accomplishing the
following objectives:
1. ) to providing a forum dealing specifically with issues of
transsexuality from a feminist perspective;
2. ) to giving voice to the ideas, feelings, concerns and perspec-
tives of transsexual feminists;
3. ) to ending the misperception that transsexuality and femi-
nism are antithetical;
4. ) to ending the invisibility and marginalization of transsexu-
al persons within the feminist community;
5. ) to fostering understanding of the phenomenon of transsex-
uality among nontranssexual feminists;
6. ) to promoting dialogue, understanding, cooperation and
reconciliation between the feminist and transsexual communities;
7. ) to promoting feminist consciousness within the transsexual
community; , .
8. ) to promoting honest examination of the complex issues
which affect the lives of transsexual persons in a constructive, non-
dogma tic manner within a feminist context leading to the empow-
erment of transsexual persons through feminist principles.
Although the primary focus of TransSisters is on issues of con-
cern to male-to-female transsexuals, issues of concern to female-to-
male transsexuals are also relevant to its purpose.
TransSisters the Journal of Transsexual Feminism is published quarterly by Skyclad Publishing Co^
2SnSS Avenue, K^sas City. Missouri 641& ,<816) .753-W16. Qpg«. W-g-JJ
advertisement contained herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its publishers or staff. Con
of all advertisement is the sole responsibility of the advertisers. TransSisters reservesthe ref
publication of any advertisement, article, letter or other submission which it considers
goals and purpoL. Publication of the name, photograph or likeness
organization is not to be construed as any indication of the sexual orientation, gender identity >ar
beliefs of such persons, businesses or organizations. All rights reserved. Contents may no
reproduced except for personal use without permission of the publisher Sutecnption ral& 5-4.UU
four issues in the United States, Canada and Mexico for four $25.00 onttufeof UnrtedSta.
Canada and Mexico for four issues. Back issues are available for $6.00 eachtn the United State^-^iacB
and Mexico, $6.25 each outside of United States. Canada and Mexico. Payment for all
issues or advertisements must be made in United States funds only. All checks or money
should be made payable to Davina Anne Gabriel. Entire contents copyright 1994.
Issue # 6
TransSisters: tfU Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Table of Contents
Letters to the Editor 2
Trans-Action News 9
Stonewall 25 Revisited: Queer Politics, Process Queens and Lessons Learned
by Jessica Meredith Xavier 14
Suddenly Last Stonewall by Mustang Sally 17
Introducing Dallas Denny 20
You’re Strange and We’re Wonderful: the Relationship Between the Gay/Lesbian
and Transgender Communities by Dallas Denny , M.A . 21
She’s Baaaa-aaack! by Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan 24
Why Post-op Transsexual Women Should Not Be Allowed at Michigan
by Riki Anne Wilchins 31
All In the Family by Merissa Sherrill Lynn 34
What Precisely Is a New Woman? by Lynn Elizabeth Walker 38
The NWC and Its Critics by Rachel Pollack 39
Let Our Sisters Attend by Denise Norris 42
In Support of NWC Policy by Janis Walworth 44
The New Woman Conference Is Hypocritical by Christine Beatty 46
Let NWC Be NWC by Davina Anne Gabriel 48
An Unexamined Life by Diana Green 55
Price Increase Notice:
Beginning with the next issue, the cover price of
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual Feminism will increase
from $4.50 to $6.00 per copy. Prices for one year (four issues)
subscriptions will rise from $18.00 to $24.00 ($25.00 outside the
United States, Canada and Mexico.) Prices for back issues will be
increased from $6.00 to $8.00 per copy. ($8.25 outside the United
States, Canada and Mexico) Although TransSisters just raised its
cover price only very recently, this additional price increase is
necessary both because of the dramatically increased content of
TransSisters, and because of the improved printing quality which
was instituted with issue It 5, which has added greatly to its
production cost. Although the cover price of TransSisters will
effectively be twice that of its first issue, its size is now two and
one-half times of that issue, and is expected to continue to
increase in the future. The price of TransSisters also remains
below that of most other publications dealing with similar subject
matter. Every effort is made to keep the price of TransSisters as
low as possible, and all money made above operating costs go
back into improving the quality of the publication.
Retailers:
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual Feminism is
available to retail sellers in quantities of five or more for two-
thirds of the cover price, postage paid. Payment is due 90 days
after receipt. Full credit (minus return shipping cost) will be
given for whole copies received within 30 days following
publication of next issue. Call (816) 753-7816 or write to 4004
Troost Avenue; Kansas City, Missouri 641 10 to order.
Donations:
Since TransSisters is a relatively new, small circulation
publication, and every effort is made to make it as inexpensive as
possible, so as to be affordable to the greatest number of people,
TransSisters does not have a large operating budget. Therefore,
TransSisters greatly appreciates receiving donations, both
financial or otherwise, (e.g., stamps, envelopes, labels, computer
software & equipment) of any size or kind. Such donations are a
way for those who are better off financially to help insure the
continued survival of TransSisters, to make possible
improvements in the quality' of the publication and to help keep
its cost down, so that those who are less well off financially can
continue to afford it.
Receive TransSisters Free!
TransSisters is in need of finding more retail outlets which
will be willing to carry it. If your local alternative (or
mainstream) bookstore does not already sell TransSisters, and you
are able to persuade them to do so, you will receive a
complimentary one year subscription. Just inform us of the name
and address of the bookstore you have contacted, and have your
bookstore mention your name along with its order. Wholesale
rates are listed elsewhere on this page.
COMING IM THE NEXT ISSUE OF
‘TransSisters: the Journal of
‘Transsexual ‘Feminism:
TranssexuaI Women At
tIie 1994 MichiqAN
WoMyN’s Music Festival
1
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism.
Autumn 1994
® fetters to the Editor
Dear Da vina,
I applaud Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan for her work on the
Mysteries of Cybele and Attis. Well done, Maggie! The articles
written in TransSisters If 4 not only clear up questionable
“Christian” ntes, but also provide a transsexual myth! This is
very exciting indeed! Keep up the great work! You are all
Blessed by the Great Mother.
Admiringly,
Gwenevere Ferguson,
Seattle, Washington
Dear Ms. Gabriel,
I recently read your third issue of TransSisters. What a
marvelous magazine! I would like to see this magazine in
gay/lesbian bookstores because the quality of writing has great
impact and the issues addressed have import for the entire queer
community.
In your article “Of Transsexuals and Transcendence” you
mention some of the arguments propounded against MTF
transsexuals in regard to the supposed “male privilege” they
receive in their years prior to surgery. What some of us forget is
that women have female privilege. 1, as a woman, can play
helpless and get a man to fix something for me. I, as a woman,
can cry when a policeman pulls me over, and avoid getting a
traffic ticket. I, as a woman, can find a man to protect me, succor
me, support me, take care of me by providing me with food,
clothes, a house, etc. Few little boys are taught such things
because it is the girls who are to be protected and provided for.
Yes, we second class citizens have privilege reserved for those
perceived as female. So little boys who are unable to fit into
male gender expectations have more than their “male privilege”
abrogated, they are also demed the female privilege reserved for
little girls. This puts them entirely outside the patriarchal
privilege system and allows such abuses as those you described
perpetuated on the two little boys. There is no protection for
those who do not fit easily into our bipolar sex system. People
die because they can’t fit. It’s best we remember this.
I appreciated the many thought-provoking articles included in
this issue of TransSisters. Your article as well as those by
Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan and Janis Walworth were particularly
impressive. 1 was absolutely delighted by Riki Anne Wilchin’s
piece — it’s so refreshing to enjoy some humor on what can be
such a painful subject.
Most sincerely,
Pat Krehbiel
Portland, Oregon
Dear Davina,
Thank you so much for TransSisters. I received your
magazines a few days ago and they have brought me a lot of
understanding. 1 feel very connected with you and the
TransSisters team. What you write is in harmony with my life
and my way. I can’t describe how good it was to read those first
four issues. I read them all cover-to-cover on the same day I
received them. I was thirsty and you gave me water.
I am a TS and I was struggling with this fact since long ago.
Since two years ago, I have been meeting with doctors, and for
the past few months I have been taking hormones. I am now 42
and sometimes I feel too old to go where I want to go. But
reading you, and meeting a TS group last week, gave me the
strength and the courage to do it. I spend a lot of time saying that
1 can’t pass as a woman, with this and that and so and so, but this
week I decided that I have to make the jump because it is MY
life. I wanted to share that with you because you’ve helped me
with your writing and your magazine, to take the nsk to be
myself and to be happy.
As a celebration of this birth, I have chosen to use my new
name as much as possible.
Lots of thanks.
Harmony,
UrwanaShandar
Ondreville/Es sonne, France
Dear Davina,
Brenda Thomas' article, "Revise ICTLEP, Not the HBIGDA
Standards of Care" is just plain wrong. Here are the reasons why:
She starts out saying that the HBIGDA Standards of Care were
adopted to ensure the best medical treatment for transsexuals.
That is not true. The main purpose of the HBIGDA Standards of
Care is to maintain the power of psychologists to serve as
guardians of society's apartheid of sex. For example, the
HBIGDA Standards of Care do NOTHING to ensure that
transsexuals receive the best medical treatment, or that hormonal
regimens are standardized at the best doses, or that sex
reassignment surgeons are in any way qualified. All that the
HBIGDA Standards of Care do is ensure that psychologists, with
no proof of their special qualifications in gender matters, serve as
gatekeepers to make sure that people who want to change their
appearance act in strict conformity' with socially prescribed gender
role models.
Second, Brenda says "PARDON ME!" over the notion that
"transsexualism is an ancient and persistent part of human
experience and is not in itself a medical illness or mental
disorder." We excuse you, Brenda, because ICTLEP is right.
Read Leslie Feinberg’s Transgender Liberation: a Movement
Whose Time Has Come. It is NORMAL to want to change your
sex. What is abnormal is to insist that a person must act in one
2
Issue # 6
*. TransSisters : the Journal of Transsexual feminism.
Autumn 1394
or another way simply because they were born with one or
another set of genitals.
Third, Brenda exclaims "would someone please show me ONE
person who presents himself or herself for hormonal or surgical
procedure who does not require psychological services?" OK, 1
will present myself. I was happy as a man, happier as a pre-op
TS, and more satisfied yet as a post-op TS. I never needed any
shrinks. All I ever needed was the love of my family and a
supportive employer. I had both all through transition and never
needed a psychologist. The unhappy transsexuals I've met are
mostly so due to lack of love or lack of money. Psychologists
don't give you either. By the way, I know dozens of other
transsexuals who also don't need any psychologists — in fact,
these transsexuals are better adjusted than most shrinks I've met!
Brenda's root problem comes out in her statement that "these
people are going to undergo a complete psychological change in
their personality." That's just not necessarily true, Brenda. Lots
of people who are not transsexuals undergo a complete mind-shift,
and perhaps some of them should see a shrink. But not all — or
even most — transsexuals undergo a "complete psychological
change in their personality." I didn't, none of my friends did,
Orlando didn't. Just because you want to have a pussy instead of
a dick doesn't mean that you undergo a "personality change."
Wake up, Brenda! Feminism has been teaching us for 20 years
that people are people, not genitals. People with any genitals can
act any way they want. As one noted legal scholar noted at the
2nd ICTLEP Conference, sex reassignment surgery is no more
unusual that converting from one religion to another.
Brenda's other arguments are similarly wrong-headed. She says
that four attorneys and a CPA developed the ICTLEP Standards of
Care. WRONG. Doctors, endocrinologists, psychologists,
lawyers and laypeople all contributed. She says that we worked
hard to teach people that sex is between your legs and gender is in
your mind. WRONG. The psychological community worked
hard to persuade people that sex is between your legs. This is
bullshit. What does your genitals have to do with your brain
cells? Sex is in your mind, and it is a limitless continuum far
beyond male or female. Gender is just the outward expression of
your sexual identity. Sex Reassignment Surgeons don't perform
brain surgery. Hence, we are really transgendered, not
transsexuals.
Brenda makes much of the difference between primary and
secondary transsexuals, another fiction of the psychological
community. Well, I'm six feet tall and never cross-dressed until
my teens. That makes me a secondary TS. Yet, thank nature that
I was able to access SRS 'cos I just love my new body! With
people like Brenda's shrinks in charge, the only people who could
get SRS would be Dr. Green's "sissy boys." And that would be a
shame because most of them were perfectly happy as they were.
Lastly, Brenda says that ICTLEP promotes SRS on demand.
That's NOT TRUE. Read the ICTLEP Standards of Care. They
specifically say that no one can get SRS unless they've been on
hormones for a year and the surgeon reasonably believes that the
surgery will not worsen their health. That is clearly not SRS on
demand, but it is also pro-choice.
Unlike the HBIGDA Standards, the ICTLEP Standards of Care
specifically require doctors and surgeons to publish their success
and problem rates so that transgendered people can be informed
consumers. The ICTLEP Standards of Care do more to promote
safe health care for transsexuals than do the HBIGDA standards.
Folks, people like Hitler believed that if you repeat a lie often
enough the masses will think it is true. Gender dysphoria is such
a lie. We are not sick, are not ill, and do not need psychologists.
We are, if anything, gender gifted. As soon as the psychologists
are removed from our life, we can begin to achieve legal
liberation. This is exactly what happened with the rest of the
queer community. Once homosexuality was removed from the
realm of the psychologists, legal liberation began to occur.
Brenda, it is OK for you to take pride in your "heterosexual
crossdresser" identity. Just please leave us lesbian transsexuals
alone and don't try to smother us with psychological
gobbledygook i.e., HBIGDA Standards. Like other women and
men, we want to have a right of choice to do with our bodies as
we think best. Abortion or SRS, it's the same issue. The
ICTLEP Standards of Care give us our freedom of choice, which
is also our freedom of gender.
Martine Aliana Rothblatt
Washington, D.C.
Dear Davina,
i find myself, at the point of semi-retirement, being fortunate
to be a therapist to multigendered, rainbow-selved folks. My
clients swim in seas other than the standard, dichotomous one. I
wish to thank them for introducing me to the depths of the soul,
the profound illusion of “oneself in everyday life,” the concept
(Ru Paul) that we are all in drag. You have a great magazine!
Sincerely,
Suzan Mayer, M.S.W.,
Portland, Oregon
Dear Editor,
In response to the letter to the editor by Lyn Duff in the
Summer 1994 issue, she denies reality when she claims that
transsexualism is about gender. Transsexualism is defined in the
DSM-III-R as the “persistent preoccupation for at least two years
with getting rid erf one’s primary and secondary sex characteristics
and acquiring the sex characteristics of the other sex.” The “sex”
O’Hartigan refers to is the need for transsexuals to remove the
hated genitalia that daily denies them their personal identities.
Let’s get this straight being a transsexual is not about the
clothes you wear or the job you have or who you go to bed with
or how you get your rocks off. It has everything to do with
hating the nasty bits between your legs. If a person wants to
change gender, then more power to them, but don’t confuse a
person’s desire to identify with another gender with the real need
of transsexuals to remove those parts of their bodies that tortures
3
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
their daily existences. Desire to cut the nasty bits off? You’re a
transsexual. Don’t want surgery? You’re something else, lets
call it transgender. Neither is better or worse than the other, but
they are different.
In my life I’ve changed genders, butch to femme, biker bitch
to mom, but I have always maintained an overriding hatred of the
alien growth in my pants. I was never a woman in a man’s body;
I was a girl with a hideous birth defect, and I have spent my life
in the pursuit of having that defect excised.
If an individual wants to be a “chick with a dick,” then go for
it, but don’t even suggest to me that surgery is unnecessary, or
that the medical profession “pressures” people into surgery. I’d be
dead without it. Protesting the DSM, or trashing surgery on TV
or even trying to group transsexuals under the “umbrella” term of
“transgender” not only denies the existence of those of us who
would die without surgery, but it makes surgery that much harder
to obtain. If you don’t want surgery, then so be it, but don’t
make it impossible for those of us who see it as our only hope!
In Sisterhood,
Rachel Koteles,
Portland, Oregon
Dear Davina,
I’d like to take this opportunity to comment on Ms. Brenda
Thomas’s article in TransSisters # 5, and to add a few
observations and opinions of my own.
Let me begin by saying that I have no quarrel with the bulk of
what Ms. Thomas says. Except for minor details, her feelings
reflect pretty accurately my own and those of other transsexual
persons I’ve spoken to about the HBIGDA. But her observation
that ICTLEP ventures into territory outside their realm when they
demand revision of the standards is only a glimpse of a much
larger trend -- a trend toward self-serving elitism, stratification and
class struggle within our own little group.
My eyes were opened to this problem at the Be-All held in
Pittsburgh this June. I was in attendance on June 9 to make a
presentation on employment issues, an area of great personal and
professional interest to me. Afterward, while roaming the
corridor, I noticed a knot of people gathered about an individual,
who turned out to be one of the board members of I.F.G.E. She
was passing out photocopied excerpts from the newly published
DSM-IV. After speaking with her for a short while, I asked for a
copy of what she was distributing. She immediately asked me,
“Are you an attorney? I’ll give a copy to your attorney.”
My initial reaction was one of astonishment. As a social
worker. I’ve done thousands of hours of counseling and case-
management, and have found the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual, in all its various revisions, as indispensable a tool to my
trade as the Physicians ’ Desk Reference. Since when did it come
to be of primary interest to the legal profession? Then,
remembering the adage that “knowledge is power,” a whole
constellation of separate, smaller and previously insignificant
observations came together.
Some time ago, I received a copy of the ICTLEP Reporter ,
which discussed recent court ruling concerning TG civil rights
issues. On the last page was a curious statement, to the effect
that great strides were being made in securing rights for the TG
community, and that “transgendered attorneys are leading the
fight.” I have to take strong exception to this statement; my
experience and research shows the truth is much different.
I took it upon myself to pursue my own legal actions after my
discharge from employment for reasons of my transsexualism.
This included conducting my case at all administrative hearings,
presentation and cross-examination of all witnesses and
documentation, filing of briefs, etc. This action followed all the
way to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. I didn’t
conduct this myself because I believed I was the only person
capable of doing it correctly. I did it because I was the only
person willing to do it. Believe me, I searched for legal
representation, but as Ms. Thomas so aptly points out, most of
us are in a state of near poverty. So I was quite unable to retain
any professional help in the matter. Even our “freedom fighters”
demanded $400 a day !
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying a person hasn’t the nght
to make a fair return on her investment of time, energy and
expertise. But let’s put credit where it’s due, and not place it
where it’ s not. My experience is not unique. Of the five other
cases similar to mine which I’m aware of being pursued in
Pennsylvania, not one has a “transgendered attorney” involved in
any way. We’re getting fired from our jobs every day. Yet, the
self-appointed ‘leaders for our rights” are not getting involved in
the dirty little cases which establish case law and precedents for
our rights.
The research I’ve done shows this has always been the case.
Law Reporters generally name the counsel representing each party
in a dispute; none of the attorneys listed in any of the recorded
precedent actions can be identified as any of the more vocal
members of our community'. Even the celebrated repeal of the
Houston anti -crossdressing ordinance in 1981 is suspect. That
ordinance had already been declared unconstitutional the year
before, in a federal action brought by eight anonymous
transsexual women and their physician (Doe v. McConn, 489 F.
Supp. 76 - J. Patrick Wiseman, Pape & Mallett, for the
plaintiffs).
What’s this all mean? We must be careful who we allow to
dictate the policy of our community. We are not so small that a
minority of vocal “haves” can’t benefit, personally and
professionally, by manipulating the “have-nots.” Let’s see how
our leaders fare in their areas of expertise before accepting
recommendations outside their realm. An in the case of ICTLEP.
well, conferences, fancy lecterns and talk is all very’ good for those
who have that luxury. But for those of us fighting for our basic
survival, their record of effectiveness is non-existent. “Question
Authority.”
Enough on that. I also wanted to point out one small error in
the ‘Trans- Action News” section. There are more than two
transsexual women who hold elected office in the United States.
Currently, I hold the position of Democratic Committeewoman,
4
Issue # 6
4 TransSisters : the journal of ‘Iransseipial feminism.
Autumn 1994
representing the party members in my city’s ward. I have also
held the position of Inspector of Elections. Though they are
relatively minor positions, they were won while I was known
openly in the community as being transsexual. We all start
somewhere.
Sincerely,
Kristine W. Holt
Oil City, Pennsylvania
Davina,
Thanks so much for your letter. TransSisters gets more
interesting, more literate and articulate with every issue. I can see
it maturing before my eyes, and it’s a wonderful feeling to know
that such a publication is possible. It seems that from the earliest
public writings by transgendered persons to the present, vast
changes have taken place--a great diversity of articulate writers, far
less of the Grail narrative of the hero’ s journey to surgery, less
role stereotypy, and vastly more risk-taking. The overall
impression I get is that the extremely wide range of beliefs,
behaviors, and practices within the transgendered community are
becoming more visible, and as a consequence the “transgendered
community” begins to take on the depth and complexity of any
other “named” subculture — which is to say, begins to escape
naming and categorizing. It’s a great time to be alive and
working.
Best wishes,
Sandy Stone,
Austin, Texas
Dear Davina,
Thank you once again for a wonderful journal. I especially
enjoyed your probing and incisive interview with Kate Bomstein,
your book review and your publication of Brenda Thomas’s
article. I admire your commitment to diversity of opinion.
My criticisms relate to Ms. Thomas’s views, and tie into
Kate’s philosophy. Ms. Thomas is confused about those desiring
to change the psychiatric classification of transsexualism, and also
about the condition itself. To her credit, she does admit she is
neither a physician nor a transsexual.
My knowledge of the debates relating to changing the
classification of transsexualism in the DSM-IV lead me to the
following conclusion: the desire of those to have it completely
removed was based on the fact that transsexualism is not a
“mental illness,” and therefore should not be a category in the
psychiatric bible. I have no doubt that many, if not most,
transsexuals would benefit from psychological support and
counseling. That is not the point. As transsexualism is, in all
probability, an inborn error of metabolism (a congenital
anomaly), there is absolutely no reason to include it in a
compendium of psychiatric diseases. Except, I will grant, as a
contributing factor only in the development of depression, post-
traumatic stress disorder, etc., which are caused by society’s
reactions to the existence of the transsexual person. It should also
be noted that the term “transsexual” has been wiped out by the
psychiatric bureaucracy— we are all now nothing but “gender
dysphonc.”
As far as the Standards of Care are concerned, there is probably
a transsexual somewhere in no need of psychologic support, so
for that person the Benjamin standard of counseling is
unnecessary. I’m sure, though, that most transsexuals don’t mind
a little help, so I for one am not averse to it being a requirement.
Ms. Thomas’s most egregious error is her use and abuse of the
archaic categories of primary and secondary transsexuals. These
refer to those who report the onset of their cross-gender feelings
before puberty vs. those who “came” to their transsexual status
later. 1 do not know many clinicians who hold to the distinction
anymore. I believe there are many of our people, who because of
fear and confusion, would not or could not apply the dreaded term
“transsexual” to themselves until well into adulthood.
I am one of them. It was too threatening to my status as
father, husband, professional upstanding community member. I
could not take the financial risk, or expose my children to ridicule
and myself to isolation and ostracism. There are still times now
when I wonder if I have the courage of my heart, and an intact
enough soul, to proceed. I could not understand how I could be
transsexual if I preferred women as sexual partners— what kind of a
transsexual is that? I didn’t hate my genitalia— what little pleasure
I had was a result of the free space provided by masturbation. I
would have preferred a vagina, but such a dream seemed so
unrealizable. So as far as I was concerned I couldn’t be
transsexual since I had read that all real transsexuals hate their
genitalia. It was a lot safer to think of myself as simply as a
part-time crossdresser, male, heterosexual, still a member of the
ruling class if a bit perverted or different (depending on my state
of mind at the time). I first thought of myself as a girl at age
seven, prayed for my breasts to grow at age eleven, crossdressed at
thirteen, acknowledged my transsexuality at forty. What does that
make me, primary or secondary? What difference does it make?
(And what awful clinical terms!)
Am I to be denied hormones or surgery because a psychiatrist
considers me “secondary?” I couldn’t begin to attempt to pass
without estrogen therapy, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Coming
out is a far more life-threatening and life-affirming action than
taking hormones. Coming out needs to be done with care, and if
hormones before the ‘Teal -life test” will help, they should be
provided. Since no one knows what’s under the pants or skirt, the
“real-life test” is quite possible without surgery. Indeed, many
transsexual and transgendered persons choose to live in their
chosen gender without genital surgery.
All that is needed is a little sensitivity and clear vision in the
application of the Standards of Care. SRS will not guarantee a
successful transition, nor is it necessary. Hormones may very
well be necessary, as are compassionate counseling, electrolysis,
and a large dose of faith. And, as Kate Bomstein emphasized, a
good sense of humor.
I don’t know how fluid gender truly is, though I do know I
would like it to be more fluid, and the world would benefit from
5
Issue # 6
T -ansSisters: the Journal of Transsexual J eminism
Autumn 1994
such an attitude. Kate’s attitude is inspiring, and her book a joy.
It is the first book I feel that speaks in my idiom, that isn’t
basically a lamentation. We all have enough of that in our lives,
and when 1 present such volumes to others they’re taken aback by
the depth of the pain. By showing the humor, Kate will make
our people much more accessible to the general public, much less
intimidating and frightening. I’ve already cleaned out my local
bookstore!
Looking forward,
Laura Beyer,
Bethesda, Maryland
Dear Davina,
Thank you for another brilliant issue of TransSisters. Each
issue keeps getting even more incisive, thought-provoking and
revolutionary than the last one. (And I know I’d feel that way
even if I weren’t a staff writer!) This latest issue with the Kate
Bomstein interview has increased my already considerable respect
for you, both as an editor/publisher and as an open-minded person.
While I could probably reply to every article in the magazine, I
think the one that most deserves a response is ‘The Grande
Alliance” in which the author makes a case for the transgender
community ceasing its efforts to be accepted into the gay rights
movement.
While it is certainly true that many of us have been
maintaining for years that our issue isn’t a matter of sexual
orientation, the reality is that mainstream society does not know
the difference. (In a way, as Ms. Bomstein first pointed out in the
infamous Bay Times article, the people of the gay community
break gender rules by loving the same sex, so maybe they should
join our movement!) We transgendered people have been
oppressed and attacked as though we are all homosexual. I can’t
count the number of times I’ve been called “faggot.”
Since we are included in the persecution/exclusion of the gay
community anyway, I believe that we do have a place in that
movement as well as in the women’s movement. We can
continue to use our position in both circles to educate people
about gender (and continue to point out that a sizeable number of
transgenderfolk also identify as homosexual) and contribute to the
gay community’s and feminist’s efforts. As gays and feminists
make strides, we will reap the benefits too as long as we are
around to do some eye-opening.
All people oppressed by the patriarchy have a common
problem. As we work together we will learn more about each
other, and we will be more successful than if we only work alone.
A group as small as the transgender community needs all of the
allies we can get.
Thanks again, Davina Great job!
Sincerely,
Christine Beatty,
San Francisco, California
Dear Editor,
While I have been very impressed with TransSisters
throughout its brief life, I was disgusted with two articles in issue
#5. Not disgusted with TransSisters or the editorial inclusion of
the articles, but with the narrow-minded stupidity expressed by the
writers. One of the articles, ‘The Grande Alliance” by Knstine
Wyonna Holt, demonstrates the near total ignorance of MTF
transsexual- or transsexual wannabe-types with FTM perspectives
as well as wallowing in the pig pen of homophobia. Self
absorption of this type, while common, inevitably leads to
perpetuation of myopic prejudice and ignorance. ‘The Grande
Alliance” more than ably reflects the pathetic denial endemic to
our US Kulture. This is to say the article barfed me out.
The second piece of trash, “Revise ICTLEP, Not the HBIGDA
Standards of Care” by Brenda Thomas sucked. If I had the time.
I’d write a counter-article titled, “Revise Brenda Thomas, Not the
ICTLEP.” But it would just be a waste of time to try and clue
the clueless. The Tn-Ess stereotypes Brenda effortlessly flings
around continue to foul the air, and Brenda’s inability to read
either “Appendix 5” or the “Report From the Health Law Project”
in the Proceedings of the 2nd Conference with comprehension is
amply displayed.
Additionally, the bigoted format and terms Brenda uses
throughout are repulsive— take your moral code and shove it.
Normal? Brenda, luv, the majority of post-operative transsexual
type people simply have not followed “Gender Identity
Programs,” the HBIGDA Standards, or your stupid assumptions.
That’s the norm, to do otherwise would be “abnormal.” Almost
an abomination in your simplistic binary system. Let those who
have ears, hear.
Maybe someone can explain it to you.
Maybe not.
I don’t want to be interpreted as personally attacking either
Kristine or Brenda— they both may be personally charming and
interesting, possibly future friends or friendly acquaintances. I’m
just personally offended that such incredibly narrow-minded,
morality-based, binary-assumptive, half-baked ideas and out-of-
context indignations are passed off as worthy of intellectual
discourse on an adult level.
Luv,
Billie Jean Jones,
publisher/editor, Genderflex
Sacremento, California
Dear Editor
In her well-written article, Ms. Holt makes the point that
transgendered persons should not ally themselves with the gay,
lesbian, and bisexual (lesbigay) community because our issues are
not sexual issues, but gender issues. She goes on to say that we
should seek alliances with the feminist women's movement.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should work with the women's
movement, and more than that, with the feminist men's
movement. But I could not disagree more that it is to our
6
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Slutumn 1994
advantage to separate ourselves from the lesbigay community.
I don't want this letter to turn into an essay, so I will briefly
list a number of reasons why such an alliance is critical:
1. Turning our back on the lesbigay movement is a slap in
the face to a significant minority, and perhaps even a majority, of
the transgender community. Many of us do have sexual issues.
In fact, sexual confusion at some point in our process is almost a
hallmark of being transgendered. Many avowed heterosexual
crossdressers feel like women when dressed and act upon those
feelings at some point. Many post-operative transsexual persons
(I've heard as many as one-third) identify as lesbians or as gay
men. Others are bisexual. Furthermore, many people who
identify as lesbigay are significantly transgendered.
2. The lesbigay community is engaged in a commendable and
courageous struggle for human rights. For the first time in
Western history, sexual minorities are asserting their right to live
their lives as they choose without governmental or religious
persecution. What they are demanding is freedom, and it is one
of the principles upon which this country is founded. It is only
moral and right to support them in their quest.
3. Lesbigay people are asking for the same sorts of things that
we are. We benefit from their hard-won gams: domestic
partnership agreements, insurance coverage, durable power of
attorney bills, hate cnme laws. Their cause is our cause; their
struggle is our struggle. To pretend otherwise is purest folly.
4. We are all queer to Joe Lunchbox and his female
counterpart, and we are actually more "queer" than the majority of
lesbigay people, who keep their sexual preference private.
Bashers do not politely inquire, "Pardon me, are you a
heterosexual gentleman who likes to crossdress, or are you a gay
man in drag?" before bringing their Louisville Sluggers into play
on us, ignoring the straight-acting gay men standing beside us.
Those of us who are cross-living, and even those who are
postoperative are seen by the general public as gay or lesbian
regardless of whether our sexual partners are male or female. We
will not make the general public aware of our differences until we
are standing beside gay men and lesbians so the ways in which we
differ will be apparent.
To borrow Maijorie Garber's term, we have a vested interest in
the struggle of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and much, much
to gain by working together with them on the issues of human
rights which concern us all. And we cannot support them at our
convenience, as Ms. Holt suggests. We must support them all
the way.
Sincerely,
Dallas Denny
Executive Director
American Educational Gender Information Service, Inc. (AEGIS)
Decatur, Georgia
Dear Davina,
Running around like a crazy woman trying to get everything
done, but I did want to include a couple quick thoughts on issue #
5.
Brenda Thomas’ piece says more about her than it does about
us. Her language is formal, caustic and clipped. She’s obviously
hell-bent on labeling people— did anyone else shudder at the
coldness of the phrase “secondary transsexual suicides?” How can
it be important to quantify such tragedy? Her mam point
regarding ICTLEP is not valid. As I understand it, that
organization is made up primarily of transsexuals (if I’m wrong
about this, please correct me, but I’m told that that’s the case).
Not lawyers, doctors, mystic pundits, or whatever profession they
may be, but transsexuals first and foremost. So what Ms.
Thomas is protesting as an attempt by the transgender community
to have a larger voice in its own treatment. The reasoning behind
this seems to be “but they’ve always done it that way!” So here’s
a late breaking bulletin for Brenda Thomas: people make
mistakes. Some of them, such as someone having genital
surgery that may not be right for them, can be tragic. But that
does not make it the job of the medical/psychiatric community to
make decisions for people. And it’s certainly not the role of
someone who’s “not inclined to be transsexual.” I laughed out
loud when I read that phrase. It’s like being “inclined” to have
blue eyes. By the way, using the archaic and limiting system on
which Ms. Thomas bases her piece. I’m somewhere between
“primary” and “secondary,” based on my personal history. Guess
I should have a #1.5 tattooed on my forehead to appease her.
And her comment about how some of us supposedly think life
will be carefree and fun after surgery typifies the ignorant and
condescending tone of die whole mess.
I realize that Ms. Thomas requested that replies be mailed to
her. But believe me, this is far more polite than anything I would
have said to her about this diatribe of hers in direct
correspondence.
Kristine Wyonna Holt aroused my thoughts but not my ire. I
don’t agree with her perception of sexual orientation in
transgenders, but if she’s happy believing that, I don’t see that it
does anyone any real harm. After all, sex is supposed to be
defined by the participants, anyway. Her basic point about our
relation to the women’s movement is good, but I don’t think that
that involvement precludes strong and successful interaction with
the gay rights movement. We’re all in this together. Frankly, I
never saw the advantage of dividing the community into the
smallest possible groups— seems to me we get less done that way,
not more. Besides, this may be a result of my sixties myopia,
but I recall the gay rights movement as an evolution of the
women’s movement, at least in public consciousness if not in
fact And we are striving to free EVERYONE, right?
Loved Cailin Thompson’s work. If she’s interested in
collaborating on something, please put her in touch with me.
Christine Beatty’s “What Sex Are You?” didn’t rile me, but it
did confuse me— an accomplishment akin to bobbing for apples
with Stevie Wonder. Yeah, I realize that, technically, that moist
pit in my crotch is not a vagina. So? After all, a
chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to pronounce.
For immediate purposes, my sex organ functions as a vagina, so
if I take the small conceit of calling it that, what’s the harm? I do
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual If eminism
Autumn 1994
understand that this is peripheral to her central point, that our
community remains gender-role bound by its obsession with
genital surgery. 1 agree with her, but I see that slowly changing,
as clinicians begin to tell us and as we tell each other that surgery
is not a requirement for choosing a gender.
I’m still digesting all the Kate Bomstein stuff, as well as
being about halfway through the book, so I’ll refrain from
comment. I would like her to know, though, that growing up
Catholic was not always evil, and that it did teach me to
appreciate beauty and wonder, and to accept conundrums, in some
Attention, Subscribers!
Are You Moving?
If you have recently moved or are planning to move
to another address in the near future, it is very important
that you notify TransSisters about your change of address
as soon as possible. Since the United State Postal Service
does not forward third class mail, even if you have filed a
change of address form with the Post Office, your sub-
scription copy will be returned to us, postage due, causing
us an unnecessary expense if you do not notify us of your
change of address. This also will greatly delay your re-
ceiving your subscription copy since we have to re-mail
it. So if you have recently moved or are planning on
moving in the near future, please take the time to fill out
the change of address form below and to return it to
TransSisters immediately. Thanks in advance for your
cooperation!
Old Address:
Name
Apartment or Suite Number,
Address
City_
State.
Zip/Postal Code.
New Address:
Name
Apartment or Suite Number.
Address
City_
State
Zip/Postal Code.
Effective date:
Mail to: Davina Anne Gabriel; 4004 Troost Avenue;
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
cases, at face value. And yes, the white-topped black altar bov
dress was a favorite of us all!
Be well— stay strong in sisterhood— it’s where we all live!
Diana Green,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dear Davina,
I understand that a rift has developed in our community
concerning the issue of inclusion of “pre-op” transgendered people
in events organized by “post-op” transgendered people. I realize
that these growing pains are inevitable in an immature movement
but I hope that they are quickly resolved. Personally, I have
always detested the “pre-op” versus “post-op” terminology in our
subculture, and I refuse to use it any longer. The terms impiv a
logical and desirable progression from one status to another, a
highly dubious proposition. Also, this terminology divides our
community among those with ability to pay for expensive
operations and those who are without the means. Furthermore, a
usually conservative, heterosexual male surgeon becomes the final
judge of our validity.
Henceforth, I will refer to transgendered people as either
potentially fertile or permanently sterilized. This distinction
accurately reflects the objective medical facts of our respective
situations. I have no doubt as to which status a creative Goddess
would favor. I deplore any arrangements in our community which
put further pressure on wonderful, beautiful potentially fertile
transgendered people to become permanently sterilized. I
understand that misery loves company, but the true path towards
healing and self love for permanently sterilized transgender people
lies in acceptance of transgender people in all of our bodily forms.
Y ours in healing,
Joy Diane Shaffer, M.D.,
San Jose, California
Letters to the Editor
TransSisters the Journal of Transsexual Feminism
welcomes your comments, suggestions, (constructive)
criticism, as well as information affecting the transsexual
community, but most of all, your compliments! All let-
ters must be signed, but names will be withheld upon re-
quest, except for letters which criticize by name any indi-
vidual, organization or entity. Anonymous personal at-
tacks will not be published. TransSisters also reserves
the right to refuse publication of any letter. Please in-
clude your address and telephone number in case we want
to verify your letter. All letters are subject to editing.
Please address all letters to: Davina Anne Gabriel; 4004
Troost Avenue; Kansas City, Missouri 64110.
TransSisters can also be reached by fax at (816) 753-
7816, but you must call first, as there must be someone
here to receive your fax. TransSisters can also be reached
via e-mail at davinaanne@aol.com.
8
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1394
Transsexual Protesters Allowed to Enter
Michigan Womyn's Music Festival
(Hart, Michigan)--Six openly transsexual women were allowed to
enter the nineteenth annual Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival
near Hart, Michigan on Saturday; 13 August 1994, following a
week-long protest of that event's "womyn bom womyn" only
policy. The six transsexual women were: Zythyra Anne Austen
of Winchester, Virginia; April Fredricks of New York City; Rica
Ashby Fredrickson of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Davina Anne
Gabriel of Kansas City, Missouri; Riki Anne Wilchins of New
York City; and Jessica Meredith Xavier of Silver Springs,
Maryland. Accompanying the transsexual women were several
nontranssexual supporters who were also taking part in the
protest, including authors and activists Leslie Feinberg and
Minnie Bruce Pratt, both of Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as
one intersexed individual, Kodi Hendrix of Kokomo, Indiana.
The protest of the festival's policy of excluding transsexual
women from attendance was the third consecutive and largest
staged against the festival's exclusionary policy since Nancy Jean
Burkholder was expelled from the sixteenth annual festival in
1991. Thirteen transsexual women— with their friends and
supporters, including twelve nontranssexual women, one
transsexual man, one nontranssexual man and one intersex person-
camped out during the week of the festival at "Camp Trans" on
national forest land across the road from the main gate of the
festival and took part in a variety of activities designed to inform
festival participants about gender issues and to protest the
festival’s exclusionary policy.
The transsexual women at Camp Trans who did not later enter
the festival are: Hannah Blackwell of Kansas City, Missouri;
Nancy Jean Burkholder of Weare, New Hampshire; Nancy Anne
Forrest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Wendi Lynn Kaiser of
North Berwick, Maine; Lynn Walker and Krissy Withers, both of
New York City and Arlene Wolves of Ashland, New Hampshire.
The protesters began setting up their camp, including a large
bright green banner proclaiming: "Camp Trans: For Humyn-Bom-
Humyns," before festival participants began arriving on Sunday,
7 August. The following day, protesters began distributing a
schedule of twenty-nine activities consisting of workshops,
speeches, meetings, reading, concerts, religious services, games
and meals, taking place at Camp Trans over a four day period, to
women in their cars waiting to enter the festival. Also distributed
to festival participants was a joint statement addressing the need
for respectful and constructive dialogue on the issue of
transsexuals in the women's and lesbian communities, which was
issued by one of the transsexual protesters, Riki Anne Wilchins
and lesbian musician Alix Dobkin, a supporter of the festival's
exclusionary policy, who has been actively involved in the
festival since its inception.
Protesters received an overwhelmingly positive response, and
only very' slightly negative reaction, to their presence and their
fliers. They continued to distribute their literature to women
arriving for the festival throughout the week, as well as to the
many women who came out from the festival to visit them.
Festival workers at the gate engaged in a variety of tactics
throughout the week apparently designed to harass protesters and
prevent them from distributing their literature to arriving
participants.
The first activity, scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 10
August was a community meeting on the issue of transsexual
inclusion, which Alix Dobkin had agreed to attend. However,
Ms. Dobkin sent a message to Camp Trans on Tuesday; 9
August, stating that she had changed her mind and that she would
not be attending because it might appear that she was in support
of the protesters' position. The community meeting, which was
attended by approximately twenty festival participants, was held
without Ms. Dobkin and sparked a thought-provoking discussion.
Workshops were also conducted on self-defense, androgyny,
transsexual sexuality, disability rights, transsexuals in the
military, sadomasochism, female-to-male identity, gender bending
and other topics.
Protesters were joined on Wednesday, 10 August by lesbian
comedian Mimi=Freed on San Francisco, who performed stand-up
comedy and conducted a workshop entitled "The Joys of
Marginalization" the following day. A good-humored weenie
roast was held on Thursday evening, which drew about twenty-
five festival participants out to enjoy relaxed conversation and
indulge in meat and chocolate, commestibles not served by the
festival kitchen.
Also on Thursday, Charlotte Manheimer, of Cincinnatti,
Ohio, a sixty-eight year-old nontranssexual lesbian, attempted to
enter the festival in order to visit a friend but was not immediately
allowed to enter because she refused to disclose whether or not she
was transsexual and refused to agree to the festival staffs
condition that she "respect" the exclusionary policy. Because she
is over sixty-five years of age, Ms. Manheimer is eligible to
attend the festival free of charge. Staff offered to escort Ms.
Manheimer to find her friend but were reluctant to issue her a
festival wristband. After a two-hour period of deliberation among
festival staff, Ms. Manheimer,who travelled to the festival for the
express purpose of demonstrating support for the transsexual
women taking part in the protest, was given a wristband and
allowed to enter the festival unescorted and without disclosing
whether or not she is a transsexual.
Acclaimed authors and activists Leslie Feinberg, Minnie Bruce
Pratt and James Green joined protesters on Friday; 12 August
Ms. Feinberg is well-known for her popular novel Stone Butch
9
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Blues , and Ms. Pratt for her poetry. Mr. Green is a postoperative
female-to-male transsexual and the publisher and editor of the
FTM Newsletter, which is the most widely circulated publication
in the world specifically addressing female-to-male transsexual
issues, as well as the director of the FTM Support Group in San
Francisco. Mr. Green conducted two workshops on female-to-
male identity and experience at Camp Trans. Each was attended
by twenty to thirty festival participants.
The highlight of the scheduled activities was a speech entitled
"Sisterhood: Make It Real!" delivered by Leslie Feinberg in which
she discussed the necessity for the women's movement in general,
and the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival in particular, to adopt
an "all women welcome" policy. Approximately one-hundred
fifty festival participants came outside to hear Ms. Femberg's
address, making it the most well attended event at Camp Trans
during the course of the protest.
This was followed by a concert by the Celtic Transsexual
Modal Band from Hell, consisting of Arlene Wolves and Beverly
Woods of Beyond the Pale, Zythyra (formerly Seth Austen) and
Jessica Xavier. Hammered dulcimer, keyboard and guitar blended
exquisitely, but the highlight of the concert was the original
"Ballad of Nancy B.," which retold the story of Nancy
Burkholder's expulsion from the festival in 1991.
Later in the evening, Ms. Feinberg and her lover Minnie
Bruce Pratt conducted a recreation of their joint reading originally
performed at the 1992 Out/Write Conference, which consisted of
selections from Slone Butch Blues and Ms. Pratt's upcoming
book S/he, to be published by Firebrand Books in February 1995.
Ms. Pratt conducted further readings from her book the following
morning.
Another of Friday's highlights was the wedding of two festival
participants, Kym and Becki, performed by transsexual minister
Lynn Walker. James Green and Leslie Feinberg stood up for the
couple in a lantern-lit ceremony attended by everyone at Camp
Trans and several visitors from the festival, and accompanied by
Camp Trans musicians.
On Thursday, 1 1 August, Riki Anne Wilchns, who is a
member of the New' York City chapter of the Lesbian Avengers,
was invited by Lesbian Avengers inside the festival to attend their
scheduled meeting on Saturday, 13 August. Ms. Wilchins agreed
to attempt to enter the festival as an openly transsexual woman in
order to attend the meting if the Lesbian Avengers would provide
a contingent to escort her, which they readily agreed to do.
On Saturday morning, in an attempt to obtain clarification of
the "womyn bom womyn" policy, protesters requested to meet
with Communications coordinators Lucy Tatman and Sue
Doerfer. They were asked whether Leslie Feinberg, James Green
and Kodi Hendrix would be permitted to purchase tickets without
violating festival policy. Leslie Feinberg introduced herself as a
person who was bom anatomically female but who passes and
lives as a man and has a driver's license showing her sex as male.
She asked if she would be welcome to enter the festival. Ms.
Tatman said that "the festival would prefer not," a statement she
retracted after Ms. Feinberg declared that she would tell audiences
on her upcoming book tour that she had received confirmation
that she "is not welcome at the Michigan Womyn's Music
Festival."
Kodi Hendrix then informed Ms. Tatman and Ms. Doerfer that
he was bom with both male and female genitalia, and asked if
"only half of [him] could come in." James Green stated that he
had no desire to enter the festival, and was only there "in support
of [his] transsexual sisters," but wanted to know if he would be
considered to be a woman by the festival producers using the same
logic by which they consider male-to-female transsexuals to still
be men even after sex-change surgery. Ms. Tatman and Ms.
Doerfer were unable to provide answers to either of these
questions. Protesters then requested that they receive clarification
of the policy regarding these three individuals from festival
producers Lisa Vogel and Barbara Price.
Less than an hour later, Ms. Tatman and Ms. Doerfer delivered
a message from the festival producers declining to further clarify
the term "womyn bom womyn" and stating that it is up to each
individual to decide whether or not she is included in that
definition. Communications coordinators also assured protesters
that no one attempting to purchase a ticket would be harrassed and
that none of them would be asked by security to leave the festival,
because it was "no longer a security issue." The decision was
then made that protesters who wished to enter the festival would
attempt to purchase tickets when the Lesbian Avengers sent their
contingent out to accompany Ms. Wilchins inside for their
meeting. Ms.Feinberg who had previously said that she w ould not
enter the festival until her transsexual sisters were allowed to
attend, decided to enter if the transsexual women were also allowed
to enter.
Upon approaching the box office, the contingent of protesters
presented a statement to the box office staff declaring that their
group consisted of transsexual women, nontranssexual women, an
intersex person and transgendered women,and that each of them
interpreted the term "womyn bom womyn" to include them.
None of the protesters were refused tickets or asked questions
regarding their medical history or their commitment to uphold
festival policy. The protesters were then surrounded by the
contingent of Lesbian Avengers and escorted to the scheduled
meeting, with a number of other festival participants joining the
contingent along the way.
A the Lesbian Avengers meeting, both Ms. Wilchins and Ms.
Feinberg spoke at length regarding the festival's exclusionary
policy and received an overwhelmingly positive response. After
the meeting, the protesters, again surrounded by Lesbian Avengers
and joined by numerous other festival participants, conducted a
parade through the festival grounds, chanting "Support Our
Policy: All Women Welcome!" As promised, no one in the
Camp Trans contingent was asked by security to leave the
festival.
Following their return to Camp Trans the decision was made to
strike camp because of impending severe thunderstorms and
forecasts of rain throughout the night and into the follow ing day,
and because it was felt that the protest action had been highly
successful. However, protesters still feel that despite being
successfully able to enter the festival, that the wording of festival
10
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
policy as "womyn bom womyn" only remains unclear and that it
is still uncertain whether openly transsexual women will be
allowed to attend the festival without fear of expulsion in the
future and that protests of and actions against the exclusionary
policy will therefore continue as long as the "womyn bom
womyn" only policy remains in place.
(Complete coverage of this year’s protest against the Michigan
Womyn’ s Music Festival’s “womyn born womyn’’ only policy
will be included in the next issue of TransSisters: the
Journal of Transsexual Feminism)
Anti-Transsexual Amendments Will
Not Be on the Ballot in Washington
(Seattle, Washington)~Supporters of two proposed constitutional
amendments which would have adversely affected the lives of
transsexual persons living in the state of Washington failed to
gather sufficient signatures in time to have those measures placed
on the November ballot in that state.
The first proposed amendment. Initiative 608, ‘The Equal
Rights, Not Special Rights Act,” sponsored by the Tacoma based
Washington Public Affairs Council, would have prohibited state
and local government from enacting policies “whereby any
homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or transvestite” orientation or
relationship is the basis for “any special classification or
privilege, minority status, quota preference, affirmative action
right, legal standing, public benefit.. .claim of discrimination, or
special right or protection.” The second, more far-reaching
measure. Amendment 610, which was sponsored by the
Southwest Washington based Citizens Alliance of Washington,
which is affiliated with Lon Mabon’s Oregon Citizens Alliance
(which sponsored Oregon’s infamous Measure 9 two years ago)
would have among other things, banned the legal recognition of
sex change surgery by declaring that gender “at the conception.. .is
the only natural gender of that person for the duration of their
life.” (See ‘Trans-Action News” in TransSisters # 4)
Supporters were required to collect a total of 181,667 valid
signatures of registered voters by 5:00 p.m., 8 July 1994.
Supporters of both amendments vowed to try to place the
measures on the ballot again next year.
ICTLEP Calls Off Planned Disruption
of Stonewall 25
(New York, New York)— In a last minute surprise move, the
International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment
Policy (ICTLEP) issued a press release on Saturday; 25 June
1994, declaring that it had canceled its previous threat to conduct
civil disobedience disrupting the International March on the
United Nations to Affirm the Human Rights of Lesbian and Gay
People scheduled to take place the next day in commemoration of
the 25th. anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion in New York
City, (see ‘Trans-Action News” in TransSisters It 5).
ICTLEP Executive Director Phyllis Randolph Frye, who had
vowed to be “the first to be arrested” in the planned civil
disobedience action, cited “the movement towards inclusion by the
Stonewall 25 events since the complaints formulated by ICTLEP”
and “the sense of dissatisfaction with being excluded combined
with the sense of unity that the transgender community appears to
now possess” as reasons for canceling the planned civil
disobedience action, despite Stonewall 25’ s continued refusal to
add the terms “bisexual” and “transgender” to the name of the
march.
San Francisco Issues Report
on Trans Rights Hearing
(San Francisco, California)— The City of San Francisco’s Human
Rights Commission has issued a report of its findings and
recommendations regarding the Commission’s Investigation Into
Discrimination Against the Transgender Community, which came
about as the result of public hearings held on 12 May 1994. (See
‘Trans- Action News” in TransSisters # 5). The report, written by
James Green (consultant) and Larry Brinkin of the HRC staff
were adopted by the Commission on 1 1 August 1994.
The report defines the transgendered community as consisting
of “male and female cross-dressers, transvestites, female and male
impersonators, pre-operative and post-operative transsexuals, and
transsexuals who choose not to have genital reconstruction, and
all persons whose perceived gender or anatomic sex may conflict
with their gender expression, such as masculine-appearing women
and feminine-appearing men” and consists of twenty-seven
findings regarding discrimination against them and thirty
recommendations to address such discrimination
Among the findings of the report was the existence of a
consistent and widespread pattern of discrimination, harassment
and violence perpetrated against the transgendered community in
employment, housing and public accommodations, including even
medical and social services such as hospitals, public health
agencies, rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and
homeless shelters, as well as by members of law enforcement
agencies.
Recognizing that existing anti-discrimination ordinances
which provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation fail to
provide protection to transgendered persons, the Commission
recommended that “the City and County of San Francisco develop
and enact legislation amending the City’s Human Rights
Ordinances to add ‘gender identity’ as a protected class with the
intention of granting specific human rights protection to persons
who are transgendered. ”
A full report is scheduled for review on 22 September 1994.
Dee Farmer Wins Partial Victory
(Washington, D.C.)— Ruling in a case brought before it by
transsexual inmate Dee Farmer, the U.S. Supreme Court on 6
June 1994 established a new standard for lower courts to follow in
determining whether prison officials can be held liable for sexual
assaults committed in prison. In a unanimous decision, the Court
ruled that prison officials can be held liable for damages if they
“knowingly disregard” an excessive risk to an inmate. However,
the ruling specifically rejected Ms. Fanner’s attempt to establish
an even stricter standard for prison officials, which would have
11
Issue # 6
4 TransSisters : the journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
held them responsible even if they were unaware of specific risks
to inmates if the risk were so obvious that a reasonable person
should have known about it.
Writing on behalf of the Court, Justice David H. Souter
stated: “A prison official cannot be held liable... for denying an
inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official
knows of and disregards an excessive nsk to inmate health or
safety.” In a concurring opinion. Justice Harry A. Blackmun
stated that the ruling “sends a clear message to prison officials
that their affirmative duty under the Constitution to provide for
the safety of inmates is not to be taken lightly.”
The decision has the effect of reviving Ms. Farmer’s lawsuit
against federal prison officials in Indiana and returning her case to
the district court level. Ms. Farmer’s lawsuit alleged that prison
officials violated her constitutional right to be free of cruel and
unusual punishment by ignoring the probability that a feminine-
appearing inmate would be raped by fellow prisoners. The 7th.
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ms. Farmer’s lawsuit in
1991, stating that inmates who claim prison conditions violate
their rights must show that officials acted with “deliberate
indifference.” In her appeal of that decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court, Ms. Farmer argued that regardless of whether she had
received any specific threat, that the risk of putting her into a
maximum-security prison’s general population was so obvious as
to constitute “deliberate indifference.”
Ms. Farmer’s court-appointed counsel, Alvin Bronstein,
stated that he was pleased with the outcome of the case, but
regretted that the language of the ruling “lacked clarity,” which
could potentially allow lower courts to dismiss prisoners’ claims.
“But at least it makes it clear that inmates are entitled to a
hearing. That’s something Dee Farmer did not get. So I consider
it a victory.”
Changes in DSM
The new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders , the DSM-IV-R, was published in June 1994
and contains several revisions in regard to its definition of
transsexuality. Most significantly, the term ‘Transsexualism”
has been completely eliminated and replaced with the term
“Gender Identity Disorder” throughout.
Diagnostic criteria for “Gender Identity Disorder” in the
DSM-IV remain essentially the same as those listed for
‘Transsexualism” in the DSM-III; that is, “the desire to be, or the
insistence that one is of the other sex” and “persistent discomfort
about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the
gender role of that sex.” However, whereas DSM-III specified that
the diagnostic criteria for “Transsexualism” must have been
present for a continuous period of at least two years, DSM-IV
specifies no particular length of time that such diagnostic criteria
must be present for the diagnosis of “Gender Identity Disorder” to
be made. Most significantly, DSM-IV lists an additional
diagnostic criteria not found in DSM-III necessary for a diagnosis
of “Gender Identity Disorder;” that is, “evidence of clinically
significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning.” As in DSM-III such diagnosis is
not indicated for individuals displaying symptoms of other mental
disorders, physically intersexed persons, or persons with other
genetic abnormalities. Similarly, as in DSM-III, DSM-IV
continues to specify that sucji a diagnosis is not indicated for
individuals who desire to change sex to obtain the cultural or
social advantages of the other sex or whose behavior simply fails
to conform to culturally expected norms for his or her birth sex.
Unlike the DSM-III, the DSM-IV for the first time
acknowledges the existence of bisexual identified transsexuals and
gay male identified female-to-male transsexuals. The DSM-III
listed as possible categories of male-to-female transsexual sexual
attraction: asexual, homosexual (attracted to same anatomic sex),
heterosexual (attracted to opposite anatomic sex) and unspecified,
and did not recognize the existence of gay male identified female-
to-male transsexuals at all. The DSM-IV lists as possible forms
of sexual attraction for both male-to-female and female-to-male
transsexuals: sexually attracted to males; sexually attracted to
females; sexually attracted to both; and sexually attracted to
neither, but also states that “virtually all” female-to-male
transsexuals are sexually attracted to females, and that there are
only “exceptional cases” of female-to-male transsexuals who are
attracted to males. However, despite the improvement in the
classification of possible sexual orientations among transsexual
persons, the same biologically deterministic assumptions
underlying its previous conception of transsexual sexuality found
in DSM-III persist in DSM-IV, as evinced by its description of
sexual activity' between male-to-female transsexuals and other
females as being “accompanied by the fantasy of being lesbian
lovers.”
DSM-IV is more equivocal as to the role of parent-child
relationships in the possible etiology of transsexuality. Whereas
DSM-III claimed that “transsexualism seems always to develop in
the context of a disturbed parent-child relationship,” DSM-IV
states only that “relationships with one or both parents may be
seriously impaired.”
Both DSM-III and DSM-IV are highly equivocal in regard to
the effectiveness of sex-change surgery as a form of treatment.
Whereas DSM-III stated that “since surgical sex reassignment is a
recent development, the long-term course for the disorder with this
treatment is unknown,” DSM-IV makes no such similar
statement, but only indicates that individuals whose onset of
“Gender Identity Disorder” occurs during adolescence or adulthood
rather than during childhood, tend to be “more fluctuating in their
degree of cross-gender identification, more ambivalent about sex-
reassignment surgery, more likely to be sexually attracted to
women, and less likely to be satisfied after sex-reassignment
surgery.” DSM-III reported that in adults, without treatment all
types of gender identity disorders are “chrome and unremitting.”
However, DSM-IV reports that although the presence of “Gender
Identity Disorder” in adults “tends to have a chronic course,” cases
of spontaneous remission have been reported.
DSM-IV continues to distinguish between “Gender Identity
Disorder” in adults and “Gender Identity Disorder” in children
because symptoms of such typically do not persist into adulthood.
12
Issue # 6
4 TransSisters : the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1394
The diagnostic code for “Transsexualism” in adults in DSM-
III was 302.5 and 302.6 for “Gender Identity Disorder of
Childhood.” In DSM-IV the diagnostic code for “Gender Identity
Disorder in Adolescents or Adults” is 302.85 and 302.6 for
“Gender Identity Disorder in Children.”
Susan Kimberly Campaign
Advances to General Election
(St. Paul, Minnesota)— Susan Kimberly, a transsexual woman
running for a seat on the Ramsey County (Minnesota) Board of
Supervisors, (see “Trans-Action News” in TransSisters # 5) came
in her first, receiving a total of fifty-three percent of the votes
cast, in a three way race for the Democratic Party’s endorsement
for that seat on 18 June, but failed to gain the sixty percent of
the vote necessary to receive her party’s endorsement. However,
despite the lack of party endorsement, the vote was sufficient to
advance her candidacy to the primary election, which was held on
13 September. Ms. Kimberly came in second in that non-partisan
three-way race, receiving approximately four thousand votes. Sue
Haig, who is presently the legal counsel to the Ramsey County
Commission, captured first place with approximately five
thousand votes. However, because it is a non-partisan election,
the two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes in the
primary election for that seat go on to compete against each other
in the general election. Therefore, despite coming in second, Ms.
Kimberly is not out of the race, and will go on to run against Ms.
Haig in the general election in November.
Ms. Kimberly served on the City Council of St. Paul,
Minnesota for four years in the 1970s, but lost her bid for re-
election after undergoing sex-change surgery.
Anti-Discrimination Legislation
Would Protect Transsexuals
(Portland, Oregon)-Thc prospect of another yet constitutional
amendment similar to the infamous Measure 9, which would have
prohibited legal protection against discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation, and which was defeated by Oregon voters two
years ago, coming before the voters again this year has prompted
Oregon State Representative George Eighmey to draft anti-
discrimination legislation which would specifically protect
Oregon citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. Rep. Eighmey’s “Sexual Orientation Non-
Discrimination Act of 1995” would prohibit discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation in employment, public
accommodations, and real property transactions, and defines sexual
orientation as “having or being perceived as having an emotional,
physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to
the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an
orientation for such an attachment, or having or being perceived
as having a self-image or identity not commonly associated with
one’s biological sex." Thus, the proposed legislation would not
only provide legal protection from discrimination to gay men,
lesbians and bisexuals, but also to transsexuals and transgendered
persons, as well as to persons perceived as being gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transsexual or transgendered.
The inclusion of language which would specifically provide
protection for transsexuals and transgendered persons came about
solely as the result of efforts by TransSisters staff writer Margaret
Deirdre O’Hartigan, who personally lobbied Rep. Eighmey for
more a more inclusive definition of sexual orientation than had
been contained in the original wording of the legislation. Sexual
orientation was defined in Rep. Eighmey’s original version of the
bill as “attraction to or selection of a sexual partner according to
gender,” and specifically limited that definition to the categories of
heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.
At a meeting held to garner public comment and input
attended by approximately twenty concerned citizens, including
representatives of the ACLU and State Bureau of Labor and
Industries, Ms. O’Hartigan provided Rep. Eighmey with a copy of
Seattle, Washington’s Human Rights Ordinance, which defines
sexual orientation as “actual or perceived male or female
heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, transsexuality or
transvestism and includes a person’s attitudes, preferences, beliefs
and practices pertaining thereto," and asked that he alter the
definition of sexual orientation in his original legislation to
include a more inclusive definition of sexual orientation. Ms.
O’Hartigan also urged Rep. Eighmey to investigate Minnesota’s
recently passed statute which prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation and includes protection for transsexuals and
transgendered persons.
Although Rep. Eighmey was receptive to expanding his
original definition of sexual orientation, the move to do so was
opposed by others in attendance, including many gay and lesbian
activists. Lee Coleman of the Log Cabin Republicans, a
conservative gay activist organization, stated his objection to the
inclusion of transsexuals with the statement: “Transsexuals are no
more a sexual orientation than rose bushes,” to which Ms.
O' Haiti gan countered, “If Lon Mabon had included rose bushes in
his anti-queer initiatives. I’d suggest we include rose bushes for
protection as well.” Lon Mabon’s conservative Oregon Citizen’s
Alliance is affiliated with the Citizens Alliance of Washington,
which earlier this year attempted to have placed on the
Washington state ballot an initiative which would have, among
other things, prohibited the legal recognition of sex-change
surgery, (see ‘Trans-Action News” in TransSisters #s 4, 5 & 6)
At a second meeting held on 9 (continued on page 47)
13
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Stonewall 25 Revisited:
Queer Politics, Process Queens and Lessons Learned
by Jessica Meredith Xavier
Queer marches have always meant different things to different
queer people. For some, its a matter of pride and politics, for
others it's a time to party in public. For transgendered people,
such events evince a conflicting set of emotions, from feelings of
being left out to vague support to homophobic disgust. The first
queer marches in this country occurred in New York and San
Francisco, shortly after the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969. Gay
pnde events are now held in
hundreds of cities worldwide,
generally for purposes of
increasing local gay and lesbian
pnde through visibility. Thus
far, there have been three
national Marches on
Washington (1979, 1987 and
1993) for the purposes of
bringing national attention to
gay rights issues. The first two marches were totally ignored by
the national media and scarcely mentioned by the local
Washington media.
During the 1993 March on Washington (MOW), I became
involved in queer politics for the first time, by becoming a
volunteer for the Host (local DC) Committee. I was a novice and
I knew it, so 1 basically did what I was told, kept my eyes and
ears open, worked my butt off and learned a lot about queer
politics. Inclusivity was the buzz word, but the organizers of the
march were almost immediately put on the defensive for leaving
the term “Transgender” out of the MOW's title. At the February
Steering Committee meeting in Washington, I watched Princess
La Rouge, Kaz Suzat and Rena Swifthawk emotionally plead with
200 angry gay male, lesbian and bisexual activists packed into a
small hotel banquet room to put “Transgender” in the title of the
MOW, while the leader of a major transgender organization
watched in silence. Gravely ill, Rena Swifthawk collapsed and
was carried from the room shortly after pleading her case. Ten
other mostly local transgenders showed up for the meeting, but it
was clear we were not ready for prime time politics.
Phyllis Frye had been stating the case for transgender inclusion
for nearly two decades, drawing very little overt support from our
closeted community. The few national transgender organizations
were prohibited from overt political activity due to their mission
statements of education and their non-profit incorporation status
that had to be protected. After the 157 MOW, the bisexuals were
also angry at their omission from the title, so they organized,
locally and nationally. Their organization was so thorough that
they were ready for the 93 MOW, and were included in its title.
But there was no similar effort to organize transgenders
politically, and thus only a few voices agitated for our inclusion
in the '93 MOW
One of the first direct actions taken by Transgender Nation was
in protest of the omission of ‘Transgender” from the MOW's title
and demands during an organizing meeting in San Francisco in
October 1992. TN, Phyllis Frye, and others raised the titular
omission issue, and raised it loudly. Some activists have said it
was a mistake to put so much emphasis on just the title of a
march. But others saw the
titular omission as obvious
proof of the gay community's
efforts to disenfranchise us. We
actually gained more saliency
from the title issue than by our
actual inclusion in the march
itself. Only forty or so brave
individuals marched behind
Phyllis Frye's Transgender
banner on march day, April 25, 1993. Phyllis' speech was
scheduled for the morning stage, which I was working as a
volunteer talent coordinator. The stage manager continuously
delayed her time to speak until the early afternoon, after most of
the 875,000 marchers had already stepped off. This is called
successful marginalization. Many transgender activists were
angry and disappointed from their experience in the '93 MOW, and
swore we would never be marginalized again.
But a year later, transgenders were once again to be left out of
the title of a major gay march. The full title of the event held
this past June 26 to commemorate the 25th. anniversary of the
Stonewall Rebellion was “Stonewall 25: The International March
on the United Nations to Affirm the Rights of Lesbian and Gay
People.” How did it happen? How could we be so unprepared?
Planning for an event to commemorate the 25th. anniversary of
the Stonewall Rebellion began as early as October 1985, with a
proposal presented at the International Association of Lesbian and
Gay Pride Coordinators (IALGPC) Conference held in Fort
Lauderdale. From its inception. Stonewall 25 was to be an
international event, seeking to bring queers from all over the
world to New York. The UN headquarters in New York was
considered a focal point. An original demand had been the
amendment of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights
to include the rights of gay men and lesbians, but that goal
became lost in the shuffle, much to the distress of Amnesty
International and its network group. Amnesty International
Members for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (AIMLGC).
Additional meetings were held all over the world, but the march
was not finally named until the Paris ILGA Conference in July
1992. International involvement proved to be problematic in
Silence can equal death for transgendered
people , and our invisibility serves only to
further marginalize us. Unless we seek
continuous , direct involvement in all levels of
queer politics , we will continue to be
marginalized and denied the recognition that
we activists have fought so hard and so long
to obtain
14
Issue It 6
1 TransSisters : the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
many ways. Since one of the unstated goals was the
empowerment of queers in many different countries, American gay
leadership had to be exercised rather delicately, lest "American
arrogance" rear its ugly head. Language was a continual problem,
both in the demands of the march and its title. Although "gay"
and "lesbian" did not translate into every language of all countries
willing to send participants, the march title was eventually settled
to include only them. One gay man from India claimed that if
“Bisexual” was put into the march title, they would have to invite
half the population of India! Drag participation was
unavoidable here, but the organizers claimed that it
too did not translate into all those languages, as
didn’t “transgender.” Stonewall 25 had to be aware
of the effect omitting “Transgender” from its title
would have, since its Executive Committee also met
during the weekend of the *93 MOW and thus had
witnessed the exclusion controversy first-hand.
But the opposition to “Transgender” was based on
more than language. Drag queen activists were
adamantly opposed to including transgenders, for
many reasons. Many of them were angry at the
addition of “transgender” to the P.C. listing of major
queer groups, as in "gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender" and they resented the term when it was
applied to them. Stonewall will always be the
center of drag queen pride, and many felt they were
being marginalized again. Like the characters in
Jennie Livingston's Paris Is Burning, the. drag queens and kings
who started the Stonewall Rebellion on June 26, 1969, were
street people of color. Latinos and African-Americans. Their
primary self-identification was and still is gay, then drag. To
many of them, transgender equals transsexual, and as gay males
first and foremost, no drag queen will identify with a term he
interprets to mean he intends to sever his sexuality. Some drag
queens who do become transsexual refuse to identify as
transgender because the term is still too new and too confusing for
them. Drag queens of color associate transgender with the
oppressive white culture, and many are aware that heterosexual
crossdressers comprise the vast majority of transgenders.
My involvement with Stonewall 25 began in the summer of
1993, when I joined EQUAL After the March on Washington,
members of the local (DC) host committee decided to stay
together to work on L.G.B.T. issues and to become the local
organizers for Stonewall 25. EQUAL (Equality for Queers United
for Activism and Liberation) was very pro-transgender from its
inception, and I will always be grateful to them for their
continuous support I went on a "vacation" from activism during
the late summer and early fall for my S.R.S., and when I was
well enough to return to EQUAL meetings, I saw some of the
early Stonewall 25 literature obtained by one of our EQUAL
members who attended the July 31-August 1 Stonewall 25
Executive Committee meeting in Milwaukee. The Call to Arms
for Stonewall 25 was written by Steve Ault, who emerged as a
key opponent of transgender inclusion, but it seemed that ILGA,
the International Lesbian and Gay Association, was really running
the show. There was no mention whatsoever in Stonewall 25
literature of anyone transgender, bisexual or even drag. It began
to look like the MOW redux, so I started sending out alarms to
the national transgender activists that fall.
On November 13, three EQUAL members lead by drag activist
Jeffrey Pendleton traveled to New York City to attend a meeting
of ILGA's secretariat to confront them with the titular and
language omissions. ILGA was under fire for it's inclusion of
NAMBLA as a participating organization. Steve Ault had stated
that some ILGA representatives were opposed to transgender
inclusion because they felt it was wrong to combine sexual
orientation and gender identity under one banner. But in his
discussion with ILGA, Pendleton found this was just a
smokescreen. The ILGA Secretariat agreed with Pendleton's
arguments, and announced it's support of transgender inclusion in
Stonewall 25, but unfortunately this endorsement came only as a
"recommendation", because such a decision could only be made by
the ILGA representatives attending the full ILGA wold conference
that would meet one week after the Stonewall 25
commemoration. Steve Ault eventually resigned in early January.
The Stonewall 25 US Steering Committee January meeting in
Atlanta became crucial, but it seemed no other transgenders were
going to it. Since my friends in EQUAL were going, I decided to
go, representing Transgender Nation and holding FTM's proxy.
Phyllis Frye had decided on a pre-emptive press strike, and sent a
letter to all the Steering Committee members and the queer press
castigating Stonewall 25 for not putting “Transgender” in the
title. The "Shame" letter, sent by a lawyer unknown to most of
the members, had a chilling effect on Stonewall 25, and created
negative publicity for an event already struggling with many
internal organizational problems. It was to this angry, confused,
unorganized group of organizers that 1 made my first proposal for
inclusion of transgender and bisexuals at the Atlanta US Steering
Committee meeting in Atlanta on January 17, 1994. I was the
only transgender present, and I had walked into a hornets' nest of
opposition.
15
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
National Co-chair Nicole Ramirez-Murray lead the opposition
to transgender inclusion. He is a drag queen who at one time
pursued transsexualism, taking hormones for five years. He was
also one of the twelve national co-chairs for the ‘93 March On
Washington, and had been an ardent foe of transgenders even then.
In the minutes from the January 17 meeting of the Stonewall 25
Executive Committee Meeting in Atlanta, while discussing the
transgender inclusion issue, Ramirez-Murray is quoted as stating,
"There is no transgender, only drag and transsexual". Juan Pablo
Ordonez, the ILGA representative, trotted out ILGA's language
argument again, that the march's title was an international
decision and that it would be "American arrogance" to change the
title of Stonewall 25. It was clear that the odds were heavily
against “Transgender” inclusion.
Unlike the consensus method of the March on Washington,
Stonewall 25 US Steering Committee was run by Robert's Rules
and the committee was dominated by process queens. 1 was
representing Transgender Nation and FTM, and the learning curve
for delegates was very short. I made my proposal for the Steering
Committee to demand that ILGA add “Transgender” to the
Stonewall 25 title, and I also supported a friendly amendment
from the Bisexual Caucus to add “Bisexual” as well. In the
discussion that followed, three speakers were for it and seven
spoke against it The drag queen activists stated their hatred of the
term “transgender,” and in so doing it also became an
empowerment issue for them. Some very angry African-
American lesbian separatists also spoke against it, as did Juan-
Pablo Ordonez. And Ramirez-Murray's speech disputed the very
existence of anyone or anything transgender, as he had done during
the 1993 MOW
Ramirez-Murray had told me beforehand that the People of
Color Caucus (to which he also belonged) wanted to table the
vote on the title until they could meet to discuss the issue. I
asked him if I might be able to speak on the issue before the
People of Color Caucus, and hie agreed. After the proposal
discussion ended and a motion was made to table my proposal, I
formally asked the POC Caucus to speak with them. But in an
unusual move, the Plenary Session was adjourned for five
minutes, while the People of Color Caucus met in a comer of the
room to discuss the issue there and then. Upon their return, their
spokesperson announced they had rejected my offer to address
them, stating they could "educate" themselves, that transgendered
people are guilty of oppressing people of color (!), and that they
would not support adding “Transgender” to the title. The vote
tally on the proposal itself was 17 for, 51 against, with 13
abstentions.
But we did not give up. Phyllis Frye kept up the heat with
fiery press releases, and Pendleton and I worked the delegates and
executive committee for any support or advantages we could get.
The US Steering Committee had in effect made an international
decision for ILGA by removing NAMBLA from the march in
Atlanta, and was taking a lot of heat for it and for the exclusion of
the other sexual minorities. To quell what was becoming a
Firestorm of controversy. National Co-Chair Franklin Frye wrote
an apologia stating that the Stonewall 25 Executive Committee
didn't "remove" anyone from the title of Stonewall 25, and referred
anyone interested in bisexual, drag or transgender concerns to the
language of the march's demands. But their ineptitude was so
complete that they didn't even bother to include transgenders or
S.R.S. in the health demand.
I intended to reintroduce the issue at the last meeting of
Stonewall 25 US Steering Committee in mid-March in New York
City. My proposal was carefully reworded and was different from
the proposal I had introduced in Atlanta I simply asked that the
US Steering Committee declare the title to read “Stonewall 25:
The International March on the United Nations to Affirm the
Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Drag and Transgender
People” over any objections ILGA had.
But by the time of the march meeting. Stonewall 25 was in
serious trouble. There were personnel problems, with many
people voicing their dislike of the California Log Cabin
Republicans brought in to run the march. ILGA's chief Stonewall
25 representative, Juan Pablo Ordonez, had resigned and the
fundraising and media chairs were fired that weekend by the
Stonewall 25 Executive Committee. Very few gay people in the
United States seemed at all interested in Stonewall 25, perhaps
because of last year's March on Washington, or perhaps because it
was in the friendly city of New Y ork City. A domestic outreach
coordinator was finally hired almost as an afterthought, but still
much too late to have an effect.
But Stonewall 25 worst problem was the lack of money. Due
to the nonexistent domestic outreach and insufficient media
attention, not enough dollars were coming in, and Stonewall 25
was turning out to be a New York and international affair. This
has had a significant impact in Stonewall 25 budget Originally,
it was nearly $4 million, and had been drawn down to $2.1
million. As a result, deposits were not made in time for
everything from the huge Sony television screens to the main
stage and public address systems to the porta-johns and -janes.
And the organizers were unable to get Mayor Giuiliani to approve
the two parade routes for the estimated two million queers coming
to New York City. Not only were Fifth and Eighth Avenues
denied to the organizers, but Rudy wouldn't even let Stonewall 25
use Central Park, nor step off anywhere near the UN
On Saturday, I told only a few people that we were going to
reintroduce the title issue during Sunday's Plenary session. I
made a special effort to dialogue with the bisexuals, who like us
were also excluded from Stonewall 25 title. That evening 1 had
dinner with Leslie Feinberg and Riki Anne Wilchins. Riki and
Denise Norris had formed a new group. The Transsexual Menace,
and in their first action, had gotten the Gay Games to change their
policies regarding transsexuals. I stayed up all Saturday night
preparing a Transsexual Menace flyer with Norris to be distributed
to everyone entering the Sunday plenary, which was at the NYU
Law School auditorium.
The Stonewall 25 Executive Committee met all morning
long, discussing "personnel issues", delaying the start of the
plenary session and pissing everyone off. The plenary did not
begin until almost noon, but by then the tide had changed, and
everyone knew it. After they (continued on page 19)
16
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Suddenly Last Stonewall
by Mustang Sally
Contrary to conservative white gay male revisionist history,
there were indeed transsexuals at the Stonewall Inn when the riots
broke out in 1969. I had the chance to shake the hand of one of
them this summer, while in New York City for Stonewall 25.
Thus, I was not fooled by the exclusion of the word
"transgendered" from the title of the march on the United Nations,
brought about in large part by economic pressure applied by
affluent white gay male donors. Both Stonewall 25 and Gay
Games IV were heavy on corporate tie-ins and expensive
entertainment events, at the expense of the more marginalized
queers who had fought the battles of the summer of 1969 in the
first place. There was tension in New York City the entire
weekend between the common queer masses and the A-list
wannabes who couldn't get that we could celebrate both
mainstream clout and pride in our various subcultures, that
Stonewall belonged not just to the sweater boy set but to the
colored, the female and the transgendered.
By the Stonewall weekend, both
ICTLEP and a new organization.
Transsexual Menace, had argued with
the Stonewall 25 Committee over the
"T" word. ICTLEP circulated plans
for a sit-in to block the march and
issued a call for volunteers until
Transsexual Menace issued a press
release dropping their protest in
exchange for concessions to be
implemented locally on an ongoing basis. In calling off its
action, ICTLEP also claimed to have achieved enough of its
goals.
Still, a number of unauthorized events and marches took
place, focusing on the queer populist nature of the original
Stonewall riots and protesting the sanitized, corporate face of the
official celebrations. On Friday afternoon, there was an
orientation on these issues at NYU in which Leslie Feinberg took
part. That evening, a Drag March involving 8,000 people
(including Radical Faeries, various drag queens, ACT-UP and the
Lesbian Avengers) blocked Seventh Avenue until the police
heeded the Radical Faerie chant of "Go away, go away."
On Saturday, On Our Backs and Steam magazines co-
sponsored a forum/performance event on queer sexuality. It was
emceed by the Village Voice's Donna Minkowitz, who had
written a highly controversial article on the Brandon Teena murder
which failed even to discuss the matter of Teena's claim to be
transsexual. Transsexual Menace stalwarts razzed Minkowitz,
first for missing her opportunity to say "and transgender," then for
muffing the chance to make up for her gaffe. The razzing was
done for laughs, with the Menace enjoying Minkowitz pratfalls as
she tried to tapdance her way around the controversy.
That night, 3,000 radicals went on an unauthorized walking
tour of Greenwich Village with the theme of "Stonewall Was A
Riot." Since that afternoon's Dyke March had resulted in 5,000
women— many bare-breasted— closing Fifth Avenue, the police
nearly prevented this march from leaving Sheridan Square.
Eventually, they ceded Greenwich Village's narrow side streets but
kept the marchers on the sidewalk elsewhere, but for West Street
on the Hudson, which had been blocked off for a fireworks show.
There, a stop was made to commemorate and protest the murder of
transgendered sex workers, whose bodies are often dumped into the
river, and Denise Norris of Transsexual Menace read a statement
from Yvonne Ritter, an original rioter who is now a post-op
MTF and nurse.
Surprisingly, the Mayor's office did a turnabout and let
ACT-UP have Fifth Avenue, the traditional route for New York
parades, for a march to the March on Sunday morning. 1 1 ,000
people took part without incident. There are reports, however,
that last-minute applications to pass money buckets at the rally in
Central Park were turned down after a transgendered co-chair, San
Diego drag queen Nicole Ramirez
Murray, publicly dissed Mayor
Guiliani. It seemed the Committee
could not win for losing on the
transgender issue, especially after
having alienated local activists by pre-
empting New Y ork's annual Pride Day
celebration.
At the Stonewall 25 march itself,
the transgender contingent, which
included organizations from New
York, New Jersey and San Francisco, took up an entire block.
Moreover, a number of other contingents' banners included the
words "and transgender" with inclusive language. The Workers'
World Party carried a banner with Leslie Feinberg's picture in the
transgender spot.
That transgender participation went off smoothly did not stop
yet another attempt to squeeze us out. The Committee,
supposedly under time constraints, attempted to drop Leslie
Feinberg from the roster of Central Park rally speakers. Feinberg
resisted, and ended up being moved to the very beginning of the
celebration, which started a number of minutes early to allow the
schedule shuffle.
Aidy Griffin of Sydney, Australia's Transgender Liberation
Coalition (or TLC) was also moved forward, and thus was not left
unheard when the sound permit expired at 7:00 p.m. After telling
the crowd that Stonewall was started by transgendered people,
including transsexuals, Griffin assailed the drawing of boundaries
around the community to present an image that was safely gay
but not queer. She said it takes recognizing diversity to build
community, and claimed this would result in straight people
“The thought of prime lesbian
feminist movement intelligentsia
pushing the first transsexual lesbian-
feminists * thoughts on gender
forward to center stage, as though
the past twenty years of lesbian
transphobia were but a trifle, was
truly mind-boggling.”
17
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Siutumn 1994
The start of a good sized transgender contingent
photo by Mustang Sally
having to explain themselves to queer folk instead of the other
way around.
As a milestone, however. Stonewall 25 would pale in
comparison to an event that took place three nights later, the
UNITY and Inclusion benefit for Camp Trans. Can you say,
"History in the making?" I think you could: the lesbian
feminists who took part came not just to support Camp Trans,
but to claim its cause as part and parcel of lesbian feminism.
"Femme" activist Amber Hollibaugh raeheted the event up to
historical proportions by saying, "Tonight is historic. I know
something's historic when there's a list of people I don't know or
don't know what they're going to say. When it's not an insider's
club." Later, Minnie Bruce Pratt raised the stakes by claiming,
"This is no longer about transsexuals; this is about the larger
issue of gender oppression."
Local speakers, such as Ann Northrup of Gay Games IV,
activist Donald Suggs and City Councilmember Tom Duane,
praised Transsexual Menace for consciousness raising that has led
to more outreach to the transgendered and services for them.
Duane encouraged TM to keep fires lit under city and service
agency feet to expand services for New York City's transgendered.
He specifically requested individual involvement with the 46th.
Street Safe Space, including being role models for transgendered
teens thrown out by their families. Duane apparently has been a
major ally, judging by Denise Norris' presenting him with his
very own Transsexual Menace embroidered black satin jacket
(with the name "Missy" on the breast).
Donald Suggs criticized Stonewall 25's tacit discarding of the
queer community's most vulnerable members, saying the
emphasis on lesbians and gays as a "presentable" market for
corporate advertising could leave the more marginalized out in the
cold when it came to support and services. Suggs came out in the
midwest, his role models the people who couldn't hide because
they were too queer, people who had the guts to be out even if it
meant facing violence. To him, the hopes that the transgendered
would go away and not embarrass the rich sweater boys was of a
kind with the relative invisibility of people
of color in the endless merchandising
materials for Stonewall 25.
The Lesbian Avengers on both coasts
have been very strongly and unequivocally
pro-transsexual inclusion, an amazing turn
of events in lesbian politics. LA New
York called "woman-bom women only"
policies "a bunch of shit," and promised to
be at Camp Trans.
Amber Hollibaugh went even further in
a passionate speech that elicited a standing
ovation. She spoke of how she had taken
different pieces of her own identity from
both feminine and masculine people. "Each
of us lives, experiences and constructs our
sexuality and gender in different ways," she
said. "The lesbian feminist gender police
do not get to say what we look like, who
we want, why we want them, and how we do it with them."
Seeing Kate Bomstein's play Hidden: A Gender scared the hell out
of her, she said, probably because it pointed out how afraid she
was of possibly finding herself attracted to someone who hadn't
come up the way she had, though loving the wrong people was
how she had discovered her lesbianism. She staked a claim to "a
liberation movement that values desire that’s different," and
declared that femimsm had never been meant to define individual
women's desires or label them as inappropriate.
Minnie Bruce Pratt, saying her first experience of the
women's movement was of "a place where you could bend gender
and set up an economic system in which you could do that,"
declared that transsexual inclusion and transgender activism were
vital to lesbian feminism. "The complexities of gender are
layered through everybody's life," she said. She predicted a strong
and positive reception in the lesbian feminist community to
discussions of gender, and was "happy to be going to Camp Trans
to see the meeting of these two currents as a continuing
development of the movement."
Once these lesbian activists had taken the transsexual
feminist ball and run with it themselves, there was really little
left to say but for Leslie Feinberg's very scholastic exposition of
how and why we should build on the foundation laid by liberation
movements of the '60s. Much appreciated comic relief came from
lesbian playwright/performance artist Holly Hughes, who
performed a hilarious segment from her play Clit Notes , and Kate
Bomstein, who acted out the very frightening speech therapist
sessions she took to learn how to talk like a woman until a
roommate told her she should listen to Laurie Anderson records
instead.
The thought of prime lesbian feminist movement
intelligentsia pushing the first transsexual lesbian-feminists'
thoughts on gender forward to center stage, as though the past
twenty years of lesbian transphobia were but a trifle, was truly
mind-boggling. Event organizers Denise Norris and Riki Anne
Wilchins looked positively overwhelmed by how the evening had
18
Issue it 6
* TransSisters : the Journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
exceeded even the most danng fantasies. Riki Anne was overheard
telling one energetic photojoumalist "We thought they were here
to support us, but they were here to start a movement." Though
transsexual feminism arguably had its Stonewall with the heated
reaction to the expulsion of Nancy Burkholder from the Michigan
Womyn's Music Festival, the Camp Trans benefit was something
likely to be worthy of a 25th anniversary celebration of its own.
With all the brouhaha about the transgender menace to
Stonewall 25, it appears we are the ones to have the last laugh.
Mustang Sally has been actively involved in the feminist and
lesbian movements since the late 1960s. Her work has been
widely published, and she is also a regular staff writer for
Transsexual News-Telegraph.
Stonewall 25 Revisited: Queer Politics,
Process Queens and Lessons Learned
(continued from page 16)
distributed their flyers, Riki and Denise went to the Women's
Caucus meeting and were extremely well received. The Women's
Caucus announced they would support our motion, as did several
other groups and individuals. We were going to win and the
Executive Committee knew it. The only way they could deny us
was to use delaying tactics, to prevent the title issue from being
brought up, discussed or even voted on.
As the afternoon plenary wore on, it became all too obvious
that Pat Norman, the Stonewall 25 National co-chair who ran the
session, intended to throw every parliamentary tactic in Robert’s
Rules in our path to delay the issue from being brought up.
Norris and I had to be on our toes at all times, challenging the
chair over and over again to make sure the issue would be brought
up and that we would be heard. By five o'clock, the hall began
emptying as people left to catch their planes and trains home.
Finally the issue was brought to the floor. Jeffrey Pendleton, in
full drag (Odessa O'Hara, thank you very much) spoke first,
introducing the motion and giving an impassioned speech
condemning Stonewall 25’ s efforts to down-play the roles of drag
queens. Then I spoke for ten minutes, answering all the negative
points against titular inclusion that were raised in
the Atlanta meetings.
After I finished, Ramirez-Murray tried to get
me to debate him, asking me to define the term
“transgender.” Sensing trouble, I refused to do
so. He rambled on with his own distorted view
of who and what is differently gendered. Then
Leslie Feinberg got up and spoke eloquently for
15 minutes on transgender history prior to
Stonewall, impressing a lot of people. After
limited discussion, Pat Norman introduced two
new parliamentary blocking tactics. She first
insisted that this was the reintroduction of the
same proposal from Atlanta, which required a
two-thirds vote. But my proposal was reworded
quite differently from the proposal I made in
Atlanta, and 1 had to fight to make this
distinction apparent. Then Norman insisted on a roll-call vote,
since so many people had left to go home. More people left
during this debate, while Norman used her position as Chair to
continuously editorialize against the motion.
When the question was finally called, the vote tally on my
proposal was 37 to 28 with 20 abstentions. By then many
delegates had left, and they had given their proxies to surrogates,
who abstained. If they had still had been there, we probably
would have won. I was disappointed, but not bitter. We had
fought hard and left with our heads held high. Human liberation
movements are always longitudinal struggles, and Stonewall 25's
title was only one battle. Due to my deteriorating health, 1 was
forced to stop working on Stonewall 25, and Denise Norris ably
took over negotiations with Stonewall 25. She negotiated several
additional considerations for transgenders, but the official title
remained unchanged. On march day, I understand that the
transgendered marchers stretched as many as eight blocks along
the length of Manhattan, a major numerical improvement from
the '93 MOW But I stayed home in Washington, with my
herniated disk and a sprained ankle.
I believe the best lesson learned from our experience with
Stonewall 25 is that if you want a seat at the dinner table, you'd
better stick around for conversation afterwards. We need a
national transgender political presence in Washington, D.C., to
deal with the national gay and lesbian political organizations like
the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights
Campaign Fund on a daily basis. Transgender Nation is still the
only "national" political transgender entity, with autonomous
chapters in various cities, but its politics are radical in nature and
local in effect. A national transgender political group could also
lobby the federal government and Congress. And we obviously
need more out transgender activists working within their local
queer communities on common issues and concerns. Silence can
equal death for transgendered people, and our invisibility serves
only to further marginalize us. Unless we seek continuous, direct
involvement in all levels of queer politics, we will continue to be
marginalized and denied the recognition that we activists have
fought so hard and so long to obtain.
Jessica Meredith Xavier
photo by Davina Anne Gabriel
Jessica Meredith Xavier is a former member of
the board, treasurer and Outreach Director of the
TransGender Educational Association of Greater
Washington, a volunteer worker for the Host
Committee of the 1993 March on Washington
for Lesbian, Gay & Bi Equal Rights and
Liberation, and a member of Amnesty
International Members for Gay and Lesbian
Concerns. Her work has prviously been
published in The TV-TS Tapestry Journal
and Renaissance News. She is also a
musician and participated in the the protest
against the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival’s
exclusionary policy against transsexual women
this year.
19
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
'^introducing alias
enng
Beginning with this issue,
TransSisters is pleased to add Ms.
Dallas Denny as its newest staff
writer. Dallas has dual credentials as
a woman of transsexual experience
and a mental health professional.
She is a Licensed Psychological
Examiner and a member of the Harry
Benjamin International Gender
Dysphoria Association, Inc. and of
the Society for the Scientific Study
of Sex. She is founder and executive
director of the American Educational
Gender Information Service, Inc., a
national clearinghouse for
information about gender dysphoria,
publisher of Chrysalis Quarterly , and
founder of Atlanta Gender
Explorations, a support group for
persons who are exploring
nontraditional gender roles. She also
works as a Behavior Specialist with
persons with mental retardation. She
has more than twenty years of
experience working with persons with
mental and physical disabilities.
Dallas has a Master of Arts degree
in psychology, and is completing a
doctorate in special education at Peabody
College of Vanderbilt University. She
has been previously published in many
magazines and a number of
peer-reviewed professional journals.
She has written four novels, and is a
songwriter as well. Her books Gender
Dysphoria: A Guide to Research and
Identity Management in Transsexualism
were published in early 1994.
Subscribe to . .
Chrysalis Quarterly
The intelligent, theme-oriented gender magazine
for consumers and caregivers*
* ... and experience
a splendor of gender!
L-A-
C1993 by AEGIS
The American Educational Gender
Information Service, Inc.
4 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.
n Yes! I want to join AEGIS and experience a Splendor of Gender!
I’m sending $36 for four exciting feature-packed issues of Chrysalis Quarterly.
Name
Address
City.
State
Z*P.
£3 Start me with the current exciting issue!
CJ Start me with the next wonderful issue!
Send your check or money order for $36 ($46 outside dye US)
to CQP.O. Box 33724, Decatur, GA 30Q33W24
20
Issue # 6
* TransSisters : the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
You’re Strange and
We’re Wonderful:
the Relationship Between the eag /
LeSMun and rrUnSgender Communities
(Editor’s note: This article was originally published in Bound
by Diversity ; [James Sears, ed; Columbia, S.C.: Sebastian
Press, 1994] and is reprinted with permission of the author.)
by Dallas Denny , M.A.
(I would like to acknowledge Ms. Tinechan Egan of Hove,
England as a co-conspirator. Many of the ideas in this essay first
surfaced in our conversations during her recent visit to the United
States.)
The organized gay and lesbian community is often dated from
the Stonewall Riots, which took place in 1969. The transgender
community is much younger, and has only in the last several
years reached the point of even being identifiable as a community.
There is no definitive event, no Stonewall, to serve as a marker
for transgendered persons, but they were at Stonewall too, and in
fact were the ones who actually started the riots, and who were
most violent and most vocal during them. It is possible to make
a case that it was gay white middle-class males who were liberated
by Stonewall, at the expense of the masculine women and
feminine men who started and led the riots.
I’ve read a lot lately about the “queens and butches” of
Stonewall, and their prominent place in the riots. For a time, I
thought that it might be a bit of clever revisionist history, but
recently I was lucky enough to acquire a stack of vintage drag
magazines, and in the first issue of Lee Brewster’s DRAG
Queens , I found this quote:
‘The (Christopher Street Liberation Day) parade was a result
of the homosexual uprising caused by a raid on a gay bar, the
Stonewall, also a drag hangout. The entire gay liberation
movement started as a result of that raid. For the first time in
history, the homosexual stood up and said, ‘Hands off!’ It was
the effeminate or drag queen who stood up and yelled first and the
loudest. It was their place! The so-called “straight” looking,
manly homosexual stood back and watched the police hammer the
effeminate boys . . . finally they joined in. Gay Pride was
founded.”
Brewster’s magazine was published in 1970. So much for
revisionist history.
It has become clear to me that there is a long history of men
who sleep with men and women who sleep with women, but
there is an equally long history of transgendensm, of men who
dress and act as women, and women who act and dress as men.
Both can be traced as far back as there are written records.
Oftentimes the lines become blurred. Only in recent decades has
the distinction between gender identity and sexual preference
begun to be understood and written about. The majority of the
American public still doesn’t understand the difference; to the
Great Unwashed, everyone who isn’t heterosexual is queer.
Both the gay /lesbian and transgender communities are
exceedingly diverse. The gay community is comprised of a subset
of small communities which band together because of common
interest -- gay men and lesbians, but more than that, leathermen
and leatherwomen, sissies, dykes, drag queens, drag kings, and the
more assimilated types living in the suburbs. The transgender
community is equally diverse. There are transsexuals, people who
have made a total commitment to living as members of the other
biological sex; they submit their bodies to painful procedures
such as surgery and electrolysis and take hormones as part of their
process of self-invention. There are transgenderists, whose
commitment to physical change is perhaps less extreme, but who
identify predominately and often entirely with the other biological
sex. There are heterosexuals who dress up in the privacy of their
homes or congregate with others like themselves at transgender
conventions and gay bars. There are crossdressers who identify as
gay. There are prostitutes who crossdress both to please
themselves and to make money. And all of these categories
include biological females as well as males.
It’s impossible to separate all of these people into two
distinct groups, for gender variance is common among gay men
and lesbians, and transgendered persons run the gamut in terms of
their sexual orientation. If you see someone in extravagant drag,
it is impossible to tell if he or she identifies as gay or as
transgendered, or both, or neither.
It would therefore seem to be to their mutual advantage for
the gay/lesbian and transgender communities to join forces to
fight discrimination by a public who links them together anyway.
In fact, this often happens. Because of the work of the
Transgender Caucus of the 1993 March on Washington,
transgendered people were featured prominently in the various
planks of the MOW, and the organizing committees of several
states changed their names to include transgendered persons, just
21
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
as they had previously changed them to include bisexual persons.
There was transgender contingent in the march. But the two-
thirds vote needed to include the word “transgendered” in the name
of the march did not materialize, just as it did not in the name of
the Stonewall celebration. There is just too much
misunderstanding of and animosity toward transgendered persons
by gay men and lesbians for transgendered persons to be allowed
more than marginal inclusion.
The alliance between the gay/lesbian and transgendered
communities is characterized by suspicion and misunderstanding
on both sides. In many ways, it is the age-old story of an
enfranchised group overlooking the needs of, or as happened at the
1991 and 1993 Michigan Womyn’s Music Festivals, in which
transsexual persons were forced to leave the event, actively
excluding a less empowered group.
But that sword cuts both ways, for many in the transgender
community are white males with the prestige and power
associated with being white and male, and the hangups as well.
Heterosexual crossdressers are notorious for their homophobia,
and in the past, organizations like Tri-Ess, the Society for the
Second Self, were considered to be homophobic. Leadership has
become more enlightened of late, so that it is no longer
necessarily the case, but on the whole, heterosexual crossdressers
rarely show understanding for gays and lesbians, and may often
even argue for their exclusion from the military and from teaching
in schools — even while they sit around with shaved legs, wearing
dresses, makeup and wigs.
An example of such homophobia can be seen in an article
entitled “The Evolution of Madelyn,” which appeared in October,
1993 in Secrets , the magazine of Virginia’s Secret, a support
group for crossdressers. The author is describing his behavior in
1957, but his modern-day attitude comes through: ‘There were
even specialty costume designers that catered to the female
impersonators and made costumes for them. However, I quickly
found that they were all homosexual so I stayed away from them.”
Obviously, Madelyn still has some evolving to do.
The homophobia of crossdressers most often manifests as an
emphatic denial of homosexuality. Leslie Feinberg, a genetic
female who identifies as both lesbian and transgendered, said in an
interview in the premiere issue of TransSisters: the Journal of
Transsexual Feminism, “I have heard transgender people say, ‘I
am not gay,’ but in an anti-gay world saying that sounds loaded.”
Feinberg continues, “So there’s got to be a way that we as a
gender community can say, ‘Yes, many of us are gay, but not all
of us are. ’ 1 think the gender community needs to be good strong
fighters against gender oppression, and that in the long run is
going to win the most solidarity.”
Feinberg’s sentiment is by far the most common in the
transgender community. Except for homophobic statements made
by the occasional unenlightened crossdresser, about the strongest
statements that are made have to do with keeping the trans gender
and gay/lesbian communities separate in order to deal with
separate issues or to avoid some imagined contamination. There
are almost none of the more virulent forms of homophobia in the
transgender community, and certainly not among the
community’s leaders, who almost unanimously support gay
rights. Men in dresses and women in tuxedos are not cruising the
streets with baseball bats, looking for faggots. In fact, it is
transgendered persons who get bashed because they are so visible.
They face anti-gay sentiments at work and on the street. The
regularity with which transgendered persons turn up dead on the
street is astonishing and depressing; there have been at least six
such unsolved murders here in Atlanta during the past two years.
Of course, a considerable number of gay men and lesbians are
sensitive towards transgendered persons and their plight. But
most gays and lesbians have only superficial knowledge, gleaned
from the points of intersection between the two communities.
They do not see and often are totally unaware of the larger
transgender community which is separate and distinct from the
gay community. The don’t understand the diversity of the
transgender community, and certainly give little or no thought to
the advantages of working together. Consequently, they rarely
think of transgendered persons when affirming their own rights to
serve in the military, to love whomever they please, and to work
in discrimination-free settings. These issues are of critical
importance to transgendered persons, obviously, but most gay
persons just never consider that that might be the case.
But there is much more going on than mere indifference.
There is a pervasive distrust of, antagonism towards, and even
hatred towards transgendered persons. Many of the more
assimilated types are embarrassed by transgendered persons and try
to sweep them under the carpet, even while they exploit them as
sources of entertainment and as fundraisers. This has been going
on for a long time. In a discussion of Lee Brewster in The
Female Impersonator # 8 in 1974, the unnamed author pointed
out that the money Brewster raised by giving drag balls kept the
struggling Mattachine Society solvent. While Mattachine was:
“ . . . more than happy to accept the income that the balls
brought in, they were quick to point out that this was something
done only in camp, not seriously, and that drag in no way
reflected the attitude of the homosexuals. Also, drag was removed
from those occasions that were considered to be important. No
drag was represented at any press parties, for instance. But more
hideous than that was the fact that drag was considered an archaic
embarrassment; they did not deserve the work necessary to
guarantee their rights. In fact, in the interest of rights of the other
gays, the leadership was more than willing to sacrifice drag in the
interest of appeasing the straights.”
This attitude has remained at or near the surface since that
time. It has recently been an issue because Christian
fundamentalists have chosen to use videotapes of the more
flamboyant drag queens in their hate campaigns against gay men
and lesbians.
A few gay men and lesbians -- typified by a small group of
radical separatist feminist lesbians -- actively hate transgendered
persons, and seem determined to mandate them out of existence.
This attitude surfaced at the time of Stonewall (one of Brewster’s
magazines from the early ‘70s includes a news item about
feminist lesbians abandoning and picketing an event because of
the inclusion of drag queens, who they considered demeaning to
22
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
women). The philosophy of this group was laid out in 1979 with
the publication of Janice G. Raymond’s book The Transsexual
Empire , a violent diatribe against transsexualism. Raymond has
said that surgical treatment of transsexualism should be “morally
mandated out of existence,” and Mary Daly, who Raymond quotes
extensively, has called transsexual persons “Frankensteinian.”
And Daly and Raymond are the moderates. Other separatists have
not been so kind. They deliberately misuse pronouns, force
transsexual persons out of gay and lesbian events, and on more
than one occasion have been physically violent towards
transsexual persons. The name-calling has been very' shrill, as is
apparent from the letters column of the gay and lesbian
newspaper, the San Francisco Bay Times. For the past year or
more it’s been full of separatists screaming for the heads of
transsexual persons, of transsexual persons demanding their rights
to be women or men, and from others in the gay and lesbian
communities who have for the most part sided with the
transsexuals.
It’s clear that the majority of lesbians do not agree with the
separatists. It’s all right with them if transsexual people dare to
exist. At the 1992 Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, Jams
Walworth and Davina Anne Gabriel conducted a survey of several
hundred attendees. At an event which many women value and
attend because it is free of men, an overwhelming majority of
respondents felt that transsexual persons should be included.
Those who objected gave reasons which were clearly outside the
realities of those who live transsexual lives. No man is going to
undergo hundreds of hours of painful electrolysis, take hormone
tablets which reduce his libido, give up family, friends and
employment, and get rid of his penis and testicles in order to
infiltrate a group of women. Yet that’s an entrenched notion of
the separatists.
If the levels of understanding and attitudes of most gay men
and lesbians towards transgendered persons can be characterized as
ignorant, indifferent, embarrassed, or hostile, it becomes puzzling
how and why the gay community would accept transgender
behavior to the extent that it has. Female impersonation is
frequent at bars and at parties, and many valued members of the
community have gender presentations which vary far from the
usual stereotypes. The acceptance is partial and sometimes
grudging, resulting from ignorance by the gay /lesbian community
that many in their community are transgendered. Just as happens
with many heterosexuals, transgendered persons are assumed to be
gay, and that’s that.
This has resulted in an enormous amount of what I call Gay
Imperialism, in which the accomplishments and the very
identities of transgendered persons are collapsed into the gay
community. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is what
happened with Billy Tipton.
Tipton was an accomplished jazz musician, a husband and
father of two adopted sons. After his death in 1989, it was
revealed that he was biologically a woman. The press quickly
proclaimed him to be a woman who had masqueraded “for her art”
The gay/lesbian community claimed him as a lesbian.
Marjorie Garber has written eloquently about Tipton in her
book Vested Interests. She points out that the facts of Tipton’s
life make no sense except when looked at in a transgenderal light.
His life was much more than a means to express himself via his
music, and much more than a way to live in a lesbian
relationship. Neither his wife nor his sons were aware that he did
not have male genitalia. He was a husband and a father to them
and a man to his neighbors and fellow musicians; he was a
woman only to the press and to the gay/lesbian community, both
who claimed him and exploited him after he was conveniently
dead.
Stonewall is another example of gay colonization of
transgendered persons. After being instrumental in the rebellion,
they are excluded in various ways from participation in the
liberation movement. The movement, in fact, uses transgendered
persons in many ways, so long as they are convenient, even while
distancing itself as much as possible from them. When a
transgendered person is a victim of bashing, the hate crime
statistics show an attack on a gay male or gay female. When
entertainment is needed and when it is important to raise money,
transgendered persons are sought out. But when a serious
statement is to be made to the mainstream press, it is made, in
most cases, by a male in a business suit — despite the fact that the
most profound things are often said by drag queens and drag kings,
who use their outrageousness to make powerful political
statements.
Gay scholars have similarly exploited transgendered persons,
even while specifically writing about them. Both Walter
Williams and William Roscoe, in their books about the
transgendered American Indians called berdache (The Spirit and the
Flesh and The Zuni Man-Woman respectively), look at their
subjects through gay-colored spectacles. It’s true that the sexual
orientation of many and perhaps even most berdache was to those
of the same biological sex, but both Williams and Roscoe
interpret berdache from a gay perspective, even as heterosexual
anthropologists have interpreted homosexual behavior in various
cultures from their own points of view.
With its newly-found voice, the transgender community will
no longer tolerate such colonization by the gay community.
People like Billy Tipton, Radclyffe Hall and Joan of Arc are being
reclaimed as transgendered ~ queer, but not gay. And it’s clear
that it is a reclamation and not a revision, for they were stolen
from the transgendered community, which wants them back. And
make no mistake about it: the murmur of today will be a roar
tomorrow.
The gay/lesbian and transgender communities have much to
learn from each other. The transgender community is eager for
discourse. It has much to learn about politics, self-discovery and
self-acceptance from the gay/lesbian community. And the gay /
lesbian community must come to understand that the voices of
transgendered persons will forever after be in their ears.
It’s a marvelous opportunity for both communities. Here’s
hoping that the cannons will be pointed outward, towards those
who would deny “queers” — all of them, transgendered or gay --
die right to live, and not inward, towards those who are more like
us than we would like to think.
23
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of ‘Transsexual feminism.
Autumn 1394
She’s Baaa-aaack!
The Transsexual Empire: the Making of the
She-Male by Janice G. Raymond; reissued
1994 by Teachers College Press. 220 pages
(originally published by Beacon Press, 1979)
reviewed by Margaret Deirdre
O'Hartigan
“It’s not my enemies I have to worry about,” President
Warren G. Harding said during his administration’s Teapot Dome
scandal, “it’s my friends--my damn friends.”
Lesbians in Washington State may be able to relate to
Harding’s sentiment after learning of the recent reissue of Janice
Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire. Originally published by
Boston’s Beacon Press, Raymond’s book is a useful tool for the
nght-wing demagogues seeking to
legalize discrimination against
queers throughout the state.
In 1979 Raymond, professor
of women’s studies and medical
ethics at the University of
Massachusetts, came out with an
absolutely hate-filled diatribe
against transsexuals in which she
claimed that male-to-female transsexuals are the patriarchy’s “final
solution” to women, “an alternative ... to make the biological
woman obsolete by the creation of man-made ‘she-males’.”
A male-to-female transsexual such as myself, according to
Raymond, “feeds off woman’s true energy source; i.e., her
woman-identified self.” But according to the professor’s theory
I’m not only a parasite. I’m a rapist as well.
“Loss of a perns, however, does not mean the loss of an
ability to penetrate women— women’s identities, women’s spirits,
women’s sexuality.” Raymond’s penetrating insight concludes,
“All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female
form to an artifact.”
The “transsexual empire” for Raymond is the conglomerate of
medical and psychiatric professionals who developed and make
available the procedures which convert anatomical sex.
Transsexualism itself, she argues, is not a mental disorder as the
psychiatric establishment claims, but a “sociopolitical program”
seeking to “colonize feminist identification, culture, politics, and
sexuality.”
In the time since The Transsexual Empire first appeared it has
influenced countless lesbians and feminists and is cited as an
authoritative text in dozens of their works. Catherine Millot, for
example, in her 1983 book Horsexe: Essay on Transsexuality,
states in all seriousness: “In a recent study, Janice G. Raymond
has sent out a cry of alarm; in her view, transsexuality is the
latest male ploy designed to ensure men’s continuing ascendancy
in the battle of the sexes. Men now compete with women on
their own ground, and pose the immediate threat of turning them
into a dying species.”
In the fifteen short years since Raymond first sounded the
alarm, modem medicine has created several thousand additional
transsexual women while the female population as a whole has
increased by more than half a billion. Raymond’s claim is as
specious as Hitler’s claim that the “Aryan race” was threatened
with destruction by Jews, and if such a comparison offends, bear
in mind it is Raymond herself who throughout Empire
appropriates the Holocaust to draw one analogy after another
between the Nazis and the “transsexual empire.”
Raymond milks the Holocaust for all it is worth, whether
quoting Hannah Arendt’s reference to “the banality of evil” as
exemplified by transsexualism or to explain the death of six
million Jews as “tokens” in the
same manner as female-to-male
transsexuals are “tokens.” In the
same way in which she denigrates
and cheapens the terror, pain and
anguish of rape victims by claiming
all transsexuals rape women’s
bodies, so Raymond trivializes the
horrors inflicted upon Jewish and
homosexual victims of Nazi atrocities by comparing their
experience to sex-reassignment surgery freely chosen by
autonomous consenting adults.
Raymond recounts anecdotal evidence of a sex-change
performed in Auschwitz and states, “By this comparison, I do not
mean to exploit the very real difference between a conditioned
‘voluntary’ medical procedure performed on adult transsexuals to
deliberate sadism performed on unwilling bodies and minds in the
camps. However, it is important to understand that some
transsexual research and technology may well have been initiated
and developed in the camps ...” Asa medical ethicist, Raymond
should know that through her use of quote marks around
‘voluntary’ she is minimizing “the very real difference” she claims
to acknowledge, and that she is indeed exploiting the single
incident of torture cited with her unsubstantiated suggestion that
“some transsexual research may" have occurred in the death
camps.
Raymond is masterful in her use of insinuation, for not only
does she present a single instance of torture to damn sex-
reassignment surgery, she impugns those professionals providing
such surgery today by attempting to link them to the monsters at
work in the camps.
“One must remember that many of the Nazi physicians
whose experiments were the most brutal refused to recognize in
the end that they had done wrong ... It is this kind of scientific
fixation, among other things, that impels doctors to pursue
. . the fact that Raymond scrupulously
avoids mentioning any of the studies
showing the benfits of sex-reassignment
to transsexuals destroys any credibility
this medical ethicist has for dismissing
the surgery as of less value than
treatment for other conditions.”
24
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Slutumn 1994
transsexual surgery when there are so many more pressing
concerns.” Because surgeons who perform sex-reassignment
surgery have not admitted their wrong-doing, goes Raymond’s
line of thought, they are probably as guilty as the Nazi
physicians. And the fact that Raymond scrupulously avoids
mentioning any of the studies showing the benefits of sex-
reassignment to transsexuals destroys any credibility this medical
ethicist has for dismissing the surgery as of less value than
treatment for other conditions.
Raymond misleads her readers of today, as well, when she
protests in her new introduction that the title of her book was
misinterpreted by reviewers “to mean that the vast male
conspiracy was afoot to eradicate ‘native-born’ women— the
ultimate plot to possess women totally. That was never what I
meant, nor was it what I intended to convey.” Perhaps the title of
her book didn’t convey that message, but the preface of her 1979
edition certainly did. Curiously, that entire preface has been
excised for the 1994 edition.
For all of Raymond’s comparisons of
transsexualism to the Nazi “final solution,” it
is Raymond herself whose rhetoric smacks of
totalitarianism. “I contend that the problem of
transsexualism would best be served by
morally mandating it out of existence.” Such
language should send chills of fear down the
spine of every queer in the State of
Washington— and anywhere else, for that
matter.
Oregon’s Lon Mabon actively sought to
morally mandate transsexualism out of
existence in Washington State with his
Initiative 610, which read: “Any physical
alterations to the human body do not affect the
natural gender, known at birth or before, of any
resident in the State of Washington.” How
similar to Mr. Mabon’s goal is Professor
Raymond’s opinion in Empire : “male-to-
construc ted- female transsexuals are entitled to
the same humanity, the same respect and
dignity, as is every other member of the human
race--but as male human beings or as individuals
who have undergone transsexual procedures, not
as women.” If Initiative 610 would have passed,
both Mr. Mabon and Professor Raymond would
have gotten their wish: I would have found
myself legally male in the State of Washington
despite the fact that I have a female body and
both a Minnesota birth certificate and an Oregon
driver’s license listing me as female.
Another of the initiatives seeking to
morally mandate transsexuals out of existence
had sponsors who apparently felt that the respect
and dignity Raymond allows transsexuals has
gotten out of hand. Initiative 608 sought to
circumvent “special rights” for transsexuals, and
Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan
so dire was the situation, that it declared an emergency. Visions
spring to mind of unruly bands of sex-changes roaming
Washington State demanding more than their fair share of respect
and dignity.
Transsexuals were not the only sort of queer targeted by these
initiatives, of course. Gay men, bisexuals and, ironically, the
lesbians whose well-being Raymond seems so solicitous of, are
all specified. Passage of either initiative would have resulted in
morally mandating all of these people out of existence, which is
why the entire queer community should be concerned with the
prospects of Raymond’s book being exploited by the Washington
hate-mongers to the detriment of us all.
It will be interesting to observe whether the same sort of
silence meets the 1994 reissue of The Transsexual Empire as
greeted its original 1979 appearance. Vigorous protest by queers
against Raymond’s diatribe against one segment of the
community might have spared all of us its untimely reappearance
in the midst of the initiative campaign. At the
very least the current situation should serve as
an object lesson in the hazards of tolerating
prejudice within one’s own community, lest
that tolerance come back to haunt.
That, and the fact that with friends like
Janice Raymond, lesbians don’t need enemies.
Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan is the author of
numerous articles on transsexuality and
changing sex which have been published in a
variety of publications. She successfully sued
the state of Minnesota in the 1970s to pay for
her reconstructive surgery and was
instrumental in defeating a bill subsequently
introduced in the Minnesota legislature that
would have prohibited such funding. She
presently lives in Portland, Oregon.
Sruicfe on the Sinner Uoyaye
CRenee G/unyuapin
HICCA., 7*u/c/L (5K>) 842-2101
25
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
International Foundation for Gender Education
Tv/rsrgl v
Tapestry
, Journal *
for all persons interested in
Crossdressing & Transsexualism
150+ pages of informational articles by peers and profession-
als and updated listings on conventions, hotlines, counsel-
ing groups, Medical and Psychological referrals, and other
helping professionals.
IMAGINE! 2 years oiiyrrsTapeatry Journal , 8
issues for only $9,00 each. Save $$ ($24.00 off the
newstand price) with this special 2 -year subscrip-
tion cost of $7 2.00. Remember, as a subscriber to
TV'TSTapestry Journal you can place a personal
listing with its discreet mail-forwarding service.
If that deal isn't enough of a bargain, for alimited
time, we will throw in a 1-size-fits-all "LOVE
SEES NO GENDER" Stonewall commemorative
shirt (puts new meaning into the name "T"- Shirt),
while supply lasts. Support IFGE in its efforts by
taking advantage of this special offer.
SUBSCRIBE NOW ! DON'T MISS OUT ! !
%
J
D What a deal! Please enter my subscription for two years of jyrrsTapestry Journal
for only $72.00 and, if there are any left, please send me a "LOVE SEES NO
GENDER" T-Shirt.
O Send me a "LOVE SEES NO GENDER" T-Shirt for the cost of $10.00 (+ $1.50 S&H)
NAME
ADDRESS
VIS A/MasterCard #
Exp. Date
Please send check or money order to:
I. F. G. E.
P.O. BOX 367
Wayland, MA 01778-0367
Master Card/VIS A orders can be placed via phone or FAX at:
(617) 894-8340 FAX (617) 899-5703
26
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual Feminism
Autumn 1994
Transsexual News jj&Sfan
Telegraph
Published for the Transgendered Communities
The Magazine That Will Never Contain
Articles About Shopping or Makeup
$4.00
V'-p
Asti TKANSStXUAl • NfWS 'TtUGKAFH WilKi
Issue # I
HURA WOMEN IN NEW DELHI
Issue # 3
Issue # 2
□ Enclosed is $4.00 for a sample issue of Transsexual News Telegraph.
□ Enclosed is $15.00 for the next four issues of Transsexual News Telegraph.
□ Enclosed is $30.00 for the next eight issues of Transsexual News Telegraph.
□ I am an inmate or institutionalized. Please send me Transsexual News Telegraph.
Inmate Number .
Name of institution
Name (as it should appear on the envelope!.
Address
City
State
.Zip Code.
Please Make Checks or Money Orders Payable to T.N.T.
Mail to: T.JV.T.; Suite # 288; 584 Castro Street;
San Francisco, California 94114-2588
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual Feminism
Autumn 1994
Subscribe to ^
fc ' TransSisters :lm
CuMng
@f f&mmist
FIB/'T AMHIVEBFABy IJTUE
TransSisters
The Journal of TnuusaQial feminism
1994
Skauld Preventive transsexual Wmen
Be Alhwei l§ Attend the flew Wman
CeniereuceV. Cenflicting Views
Plus: Transsexuals at Stonewall 25 • She’s Baaa-aack!:
Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire reissued •
Transsexuals Allowed to Enter MWMF • and more
Current Issue
"TransSisters gets more interesting ,
more literate and more articulate with
every issue. / can see it maturing before
my eyes, and it's a wonderful feeling to
know that such a publication is
possible. " — Sandy Stone, author of
"The Empire Strikes Back: A
Posttranssexual Manifesto "
"Some of the most hostile and
damaging criticisms of
transsexualism...have come from the
feminist community, and TransSisters
confronts these issues head-on.
Because Davina positions the magazine
in the breech of the cannon, it has
potential to cause great change.
TransSisters ... [is] ... on the leading
edge of the politics of transsexualism. "
— Dallas Denny, Chrysalis Quarterly
One year (four issues): $24.00 *
Sample Issue: $4.50
*( subscription price reflects price increase effective with next issue)
l To order use order form on next gage J,
28
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual Feminism
Autumn 1994
Back Issues
TransSisters
This is your last chance to get
back issues for only $6.00
each. (The price of back issues
will increase to $8.00 each
effective with next issue.)
The Life
of a
Gender
Outlaw:
Issue # 1
TransSisters
Mission to Michigan:
Transsexual Womyn at
the Michigan Womyn' s
Music Festival
TransSisters
In tltii iH«g
Of
Transsexuals
and
Transcendence
Transphobia:
Where
Separatism
Joins
Patriarchy
Twenty-One
Things Yon
Don't Say to
e Tramoul
Surgical
Roulette
‘TransSisters
THE RITES OF
CYBELEAND ATTIS
In fftaipT tfUi f ~ fin tfrnSh Ml It *
TransSisters
Jeelt
Pander.
An
Interview
with late
Bernstein
“Trffcr
fubm&Jgm
'the
Issue it 2
Issue # 3
Issue it 4
Issue # 5
Order Form (Valid through 31 December 1994)
sample issue(s) of TransSisters @ $4.50 each (current issue only)
one year subscription(s) (four issues) of TransSisters. @ $24.00 each.
copies of back issue # 1 of TransSisters @ $6.00 each.
copies of back issue it 2 of TransSisters @ $6.00 each.
copies of back issue # 3 of TransSisters @ $6.00 each
copies of back issue it 4 of TransSisters @ $6.00 each
copies of back issue it 5 of TransSisters @ $6.00 each
a contribution in the amount of _______ to TransSisters .
□ Please send
□ Please send
□ Please send
□ Please send
□ Please send
□ Please send
□ Please send
□ Enclosed is
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
(New subscriptions begin with next issue. To receive current issue, order sample issue. Outside
U.S.A., Canada & Mexico add $0.25 per single issue & $1.00 for each subscription ordered)
Total Amount Enclosed: $ _______ (U.S. funds only)
Name
Apt. or Suite #
City
Address
State
Zip Code
Please Make Checks or Money Orders Payable to Davina Anne Gabriel
^ Mail to: Davina Anne Gabriel; 4004 Troost Avenue; Kansas City, Missouri 64110 Jj
Issue if 6
f irons Sisters: the journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Ordering information
description quantity amount
gendertrash (issue #1) $2.“
gendertrash (issue #2) $4“
gendertrash (next issue) $4°°
Total - gendertrash
buttons (l/$2 3/$5 50/S50) ||
I'd rather be dead than genetic
Gender Outlaw
Gender Queer
TransDyke
TransFag
Transsexual Hooker
J
The Empire Strikes Back
1
Transsexuals get AIDS too
J
Transgender Fury
J
Transsexuals For Animal Liberation
J
| I love Transsexuals
j
TS lives under TS control Now!
J
Theory mutilates /Surgery Liberates
Only a Transsexual could love you
Gender Liberation
Gender Oriented
Employment Equity for Transsexuals
Woman- Bom Transsexual
H gendertrash
| Pissed Off Transsexuals United
|j I have big feet - so what?
s/h $1 (for button orders less than $10)
|j Total of buttons
1
donations to genderpress (always welcome)
1
I Total Amount
Name
Address
State Zip
Please send order (payable to genderpress) to:
genderpress, $0^ 500-62, 552 Church it., Toronto, Ont. Canada ‘M4J’ 213
30
"gendertrash is a hand-grenade disguised as a magazine. ..Be
warned, those who are easily offended should stay clear; there
is little concern here for the sensibilities of the prim and proper.
The most refreshing, invigorating periodical to hit the scene in
Issue # 6
‘IransSisters: the journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
by Riki Anne Wilchins
Post-op transsexual women should not be allowed to attend
the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. It's that simple. Let me
state my reasons for saying this:
1) Non-transsexual women need a place to get together,
where they can be with only their own kind.
2) The simple presence of post-op women at MWMF
(regardless of their behavior) would make many non-transsexual
women feel unsafe; women need and deserve a secure haven to
heal from the wounds of sexism.
3) Post-op genitals, reminiscent as they are to non-
transsexual women of penises, would make many non-transsexual
women feel uncomfortable, and therefore even more unsafe about
their bodies.
4) Non-transsexual women have a
right to get together without being
confronted with male energy or male
genitalia.
5) If post-op women are allowed to
attend Michigan, non-transsexual
women will not be able to speak or act
freely, and will feel self-conscious about going topless or naked.
6) If post-ops were allowed to attend, many non-transsexual
women, who would greatly benefit from the MWMF experience,
would stay away.
7) Michigan is unique, and it's important to preserve the
special "feel" that is MWMF: the simple presence of post-op
transsexual women would change it into something else, and, if
enough of them attended, they might try to change its focus.
8) MWMF for its 20-some years has been run by and
populated by non-transsexual women: post-op transsexual women
wouldn’t even want to attend MWMF, or, since they haven't
shared the same life experiences, if they did attend they'd be bored
or unincluded by much of what goes on.
9) Michigan's stated audience is "womyn-bom womyn", that
is, women having female primary and secondary sexual
characteristics when they were bom; MWMF doesn't attempt to
be all things for all women.
Whoops... wait a minute. Did I say "post-op transsexual
women should not be allowed to attend the Michigan Womyn's
Music Festival"? I'm so sorry. I meant to say: "Pre-op
transsexual women should not be allowed to attend the New
Woman Conference". Yes. I'm sure now. That's it. And let me
state my reasons for believing this:
1) Post-op women need a place to get together where they can
be with only their own kind.
2) The simple presence of pre-op women at NWC (regardless
of their behavior) would make many post-op women feel unsafe,
women who need and deserve a secure haven to heal from the
wounds of surgery.
3) Pre-op genitals, reminiscent as they are to post-ops of
penises, would make many post-ops feel uncomfortable, and
therefore feel even more unsafe about their bodies.
4) Post-op women have a right to get together without being
confronted with male energy or male genitalia.
5) If pre-ops are allowed to attend NWC, post-op women will
not be able to speak or act freely, and will feel self-conscious
about going topless or naked.
6) If pre-op transsexual women were allowed to attend, many
post-op women, who would greatly
benefit from the NWC experience,
would stay away.
7) NWC is unique, and it's
important to preserve the special "feel"
that is NWC: the simple presence of
pre-op transsexual women would change
it into something else, and, if enough of
them attended, they might try to change its focus.
8) NWC for its 3-odd years has been run by and and populated
by post-operative transsexual women: pre-op transsexual women
wouldn't even want to attend NWC, cm-, since they haven't shared
the same life experiences, if they did attend they'd be bored or
unincluded by much of what goes cm.
9) The New Woman Conference's stated audience is "post-
operative transsexual women", that is, women having female
primary and secondary sexual characteristics from having had sex-
change surgery; NWC doesn't attempt to be all things for all
women.
There. I think 1 got it right this time. At any rate, I think
one thing is perfectly clear now: when non-transsexuals
discriminate against us, that's "transphobia". When we
discriminate against us, that's... well that's... well, I don't know,
"transsexual unity" or something. Who cares? Anyway, it's just
different when we do it, that's all.
I mean, post-ops excluding pre-ops is absolutely nothing like
Michigan excluding us, or the Gay Games discriminating against
us, or Stonewall 25 discriminating against us. It's not the same
thing. Why, it's like alligators and crocodiles: we can't tell them
apart, but they sure as hell know the difference. Same thing with
camels and dromedaries, if you think about it Just natural law.
“Now, let's not forget to say our
Secret Post-op Motto together
before we leave: ‘Post-op
transsexuals : When we
discriminate, itfs different .
31
Issue # 6
* TransSisters : the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
that's all. And anyway, pre-ops have "Full Circle of Women".
What do they want from us, inclusion or something? Not!
What really bums me up is that they just don't get it. Pre-
ops just won't understand they aren't real women (and certainly
not real, dyed-in-the-wool "new women" like us) until they have
surgery. Only then, with the infamous, dreaded, "live penis
monster" completely removed, can they fully appreciate the
sublime, new- woman type stuff we do at NWC Being a real new-
woman is an intimate, elevated, celestial thing. A pre-op couldn't
understand it all. A dick interferes with your thinking. I know...
I've been there.
I didn't "get it" when I was pre-op either. And nght after
surgery. Bingo! Not only did I "get it", but I was overcome with a
powerful, irresistible urge to discriminate against pre-ops. I was
also overcome with an unshakable desire to do some really
intense, new-woman style post-op-only communing and ntuals
and all sorts of things I never in a million years could have
fathomed before I had my dick sent to the Great Transsexual
Beyond. 'Course, it is still with me in a sense, but no need to
dwell on that. The point is, I never could have understood NWC
as a pre-op. Although, come to think of it, I never had the chance
to attend and find out, if you get right down to it.
But once you do the Biber Two-Step, well, t-h-e-n you get it.
Because that scalpel is what makes you a real woman. Without
that scalpel, without the doctors, you're just... just... well, I don't
know what... a pre-op or something 1 guess.
Not only that, but once you dance the Melman Waltz, you
find a little bit of discrimination never hurt anyone. And just
'cause we're transsexual, doesn't mean we don't get a kick out
discriminating just like everyone else. (I'm tellin' you Bubba,
that knife cuts deeper than you think.) Now how in the heck
could I sit naked in a hot tub and get comfortable with my own
nakeditity, when I know some pre-op may sit down, right beside
me, with that., that... that THING still attached to her, trying to
get comfortable with her nakeditity. Makes me want to barf-ola
You know: blow some chunks; sing the brown-soup song;
worship on my knees before the porcelain goddess; call up Ralph
cm the white phone; do the technicolor yawn.
Besides that pre-ops at NWC is downright un- godly. That's
right I said it and I meant it un-godly\ If God had wanted pre-
ops and post-ops together, she wouldn’t have given them dicks.
(No, no, wait a minute. That's not right.) If God had wanted pre-
ops and post-ops to be together. She wouldn't have given them
plastic surgery and the town of Trinidad, Colorado. (No, not right
either...) Wait a minute. I've got it now. If God had wanted us
to let pre-ops into NWC, She wouldn't have given us lesbian
separatism. Yeah, that's it
All we need do is look at the lesbian separatist example of
"The Positive Spiritual Power of Discrimination to Help a
Movement". Excluding people has made the separatist movement
everything it is today. In fact, they've eliminated and
discriminated so many uncomfortable people out of their events,
they just feel plumb safe all the time. And it can work the same
magic for our transsexual movement too, if we'll only let it. If
they can have "lesbian separatism", I say we can have "transsexual
separatism", too. If they can limit Michigan to *Women-Bom
Women Only ", then we can certainly limit NWC to " Man-Made
Women Only”.
No, wait a minute. Sorry, that sounded terribly elitist, even
to me. That was completely politically incorrect. I don't know
what I could have been thinking of. Let me start again. Let pre-
ops can start their own NWC Besides, if we let one in, we end up
letting 'em all in. Next thing you know, pre-ops from around the
state, around the country, for all we know around the universe,
they'll just be descending on NWC by the carload, busload, and
trainload. Well be awash in pre-ops. Well be up to our knees in
them. They'll be bangin' out the windows and stuffed under the
beds. Pre-ops, pre-ops, everywhere you look. And penises,
penises, all over the place. Penises in the living room, penises in
the hot tub, penises in the kitchen, cloggin' up the drain.
Scrotums, thousand of scrotal-type sacks, a'comin down the
chimney like Saint Nick his'self. YES, brothers and sisters,
that's right, I said SCROTUMS, scrotums poppin' up like tulips
out in the garden amongst the flowers (can I get an "AMEN!"
here).
Yes, scrotums. And you know wherever scrotums are, the
deadly, depraved and degenerate scourge of our transsexual youth,
yes, sinful SMEGMA* his'self can't be far behind. That's right,
sister, I said SMEGMA! Right here! Smegma at breakfast.
Smegma at lunch. Smegma in the hot tub, just a'cloggin' up the
Smegma Drains we had removed this year cm accounta' we weren't
gonna need 'em. Smegma, seducing and defiling our womenfolk.
And penises, penises russling cattle and raping women, or
russling women and raping cattle. Whatever! Penises, RIGHT
HERE in River City. That's "Penis" with a capital "P" and that
rhymes with "T" and that stand in for...
Transsexual pre-ops. Pre-ops, nothing but pre-ops for as far
as the eye can see. The National Guard called in to restore order.
A state of emergency declared by the governor. Disaster relief
bills introduced in Congress, dusk-to-dawn curfew imposed to
discourage looters. The President and half of the cabinet flying
over NWC in whoompa-whoompa-whoompa U.S. of A.
presidential-grade helicopters, surveying the damage on the ground
and lookin' at all the wonderful transsexual boobies a'floatin in
the hot tub. Hillary called before a Congressional subcommittee
on LIVE TELEVISION to answer tough questions, I said tough
questions about her part in "SmegmaGate". And then C.N.N.,
YES I SAID C-fucking-N-N, doing live remotes from NWC, as
their camera crews struggle to CLIMB OVER THE BODIES OF
DOZENS OF PROSTRATE POST-OPS WHO’VE PASSED
OUT, SUCCUMBING TO THE SMEGMA-LADEN,
SCROTAL-HEAVY CRUSH OF LIVE PENIS-MONSTER
PRE-OPS INUNDATING NWC, YES POST-OPERATIVE
WOMEN UNABLE TO WITHSTAND THE UNRELENTING
BARRAGE OF UNSAFE, UNCOMFORTABLE FEELINGS
LOBBED LIKE MORTAR SHELLS INTO THE VERY HEART
OF NWC FROM PRE-OPS IN FORTIFIED POSITIONS ON
*(a moist accretion or accumulation of foreign substances under
the penile foreskin; a first cousin to belly-button lint.)
32
Issue # 6
‘IransSisters: the Journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
THE SURROUNDING HILLS. AND THEN,
AS "THIS MORNING WITH DAVID
BRINKLEY" DEBATES THE IMPACT OF
SMEGMA-GATE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
CHANCES FOR '98 REELECTION, AT T-H-
A-T... V-E-R-Y... M-O-M-E-N-T...
Oops. Sorry: lost it again. I can't seem
to... get... this... damn cap off my medication
bottle. Ah! There it is. Oh fuck. Now why in
the hell do they have to put this stupid seal on
here, and then this huge wad of cotton underneath
it which could choke a horse (or completely pack
a new vagina)? Screw it. I don't really need to
take it anyway. Only do medication to keep ma'
doctors happy. But where was I? Oh yeah, the
pre-op thing. So I say with pride: "pre-ops: let's
keep 'em out". Or as Transgender Nation says:
"They're here. They're queer. And we're not used
to it."
And if we need to talk about the pre-op
thing, well, we can do it all we need to at NWC
without them present. Makes it easier to
convese that’a'way, anyhow. Ain't no point in
asking 'm what they think, 'cause we already
know what they'll say. Besides, they'll just want
to see our top-secret, New-Woman-Style
Initiation Rituals, learn our Secret Post-op
Handshake, and get a closer look at our Mystery
Post-op Decoder Rings with the hidden whistle
just under the cap and the Dick Tracy-type hidden
compartmnt right there inside the band. Nope,
we don't want pre-ops around NWC a'tall.
Now, let's not forget to say our Secret Post-
op Motto together before we leave: "Post-op
transsexuals: When we discriminate, it's
different. "
Riki Anne Wilchins is the founder of the Gender
Identity Program at
the Gay and Lesbian
Community Center
of New York City,
of a twelve-step
support group for
transsexuals in New
York City and of
the transsexual
a c t i v i s t
organization, the
Transsexual
Menace. She has
also been involved
in the protest of the
Michigan Womyn’s
Music Festival’s
exclusionary policy in 1993 & 1994.
ofn Open fetter to the Membership
of the J\Tew Woman Conference
Dear sister:
In response to Wendi Kaiser's letter, outlining my supposedly intemperate
response to NWC's policy of exclusion, let me first assure you that I am much,
much worse, and far more irrational, than anything I hope Wendi can imagine,
much less put into print.
Be that as it may, for purposes of NWC, I do intend to show solidarity with
my pre-op transsexual sisters. Logistics permitting, my plans regarding NWC
are to show up with a small number of pre-op sisters and attempt to register. If
we are turned away, as I expect, we will stay on to leaflet attendees, educate
them, and confront them with our exclusion and their separatism.
As a member of The Transsexual Menace, I take seriously our motto of
"Confront with Love", and NWC is no exception. While we do intend to show
up for ourselves, we intend to do so in as gentle a manner as possible. We have
no intent or desire to "sneak in" and out ourselves, to be disruptive in any way,
nor to harass or otherwise embarrass attendees. Nor would I support anyone who
contemplates such actions.
But for purposes of NWC, or any other event, if pre-ops are excluded, then I
am pre-op. If non-ops are excluded then I am non-op. For that matter, if post-
ops are excluded, then I am post-op. Exclusion, division and discrimination are
diseases our community can live without. And live without them we must, if
we are to survive, and conquer the transphobia which threatens all of us, every
living day.
Wendi has asked me what I think NWC's position ought to be. Although I
only speak for myself, here is a rough draft of something I think might be
appropriate:
NWC is founded to address the experiences of transsexual women who have
undergone surgery. As such, its focus and workshops are dedicated to the
needs and concerns of post-operative women. Since such women are a
minority in our community, and NWC is at present their only such event,
it's important it remain so. However, no transsexual women who feels she
belongs there will be turned away, and any woman of transsexual
experience who agrees to respect the Conference's charter and orientation is
welcome to attend.
In closing, let me say 1 take a reflected, undeserved pride in the immense
achievement of NWC I honor the amount of dedication and plain sweat that goes
into making it happen each year. The obvious emotion with which attendees
relate their NWC experience confirms how powerfully it meets the needs of our
community. I hope one day I will sit with you in the fabled hot tub and laugh
about this controversy. But until we can do so with any transsexual sister who
feels she belongs. 111 be absent
If you'd like to discuss this further, please feel free to call or write. Talking
with other transsexuals is one of the joys of being transsexual. We are, after all,
a community, and even our disputes are, after all, only family disputes.
—Riki Anne Wilchins
Apartment # 4R
274 West Eleventh Street
New York, New York 10014
(212)645-1753
33
Issue # 6
' TransSisters : the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
II In the lamilu
by Merissa Sherrill Lynn
(Editor’s note: The following article was originally published in
the Fall 1994 (#69) issue of The TVITS Tapestry Journal,
and is reprinted with the permission of the author .)
Not long ago I received a card. On the cover was a picture of
a brick wall. The caption inside read, “If you ever feel like talking
to (---), beat your head against this card until the feeling goes
away.” It was meant as an inside joke, intended to complement a
sign on my door that described the nature of stress. It made me
laugh at a time when I desperately needed it. However, the joke
eventually wore off, and 1 threw the card away. That was a big
mistake.
Recently, I received two letters that sent me scouring the
trashcans in search of that card. The first letter concerned the
relationship between the international
Foundation for Gender Education (IFGE)
and the Society for the Second Self (Tri-
Ess). The second letter concerned the
exclusionary nature of the New Woman
Conference (NWC).
If you know me at all, then you will
know why these letters made me feel so
frustrated. First, I am a devoted advocate
for building a happier and safer world for all members of the
crossdressing and transsexual communities, our families, and our
friends. My thought is, if we can build a happier and safer world
for ourselves, we can, in the process, do the same for everyone
else. For that to happen we must accept the responsibility to care
about each other, respect each other’s differences, and find ways to
work together. We created IFGE to pursue that objective while
maintaining an attitude of love, respect, and cooperation. Let me
say that again. We are working to build a happier and safer world,
and to do so with an attitude of love, respect, and cooperation.
Next, I am an advocate for developing a strong sense of
family, of perceiving everyone who is willing to work together as
members of our own special community. As with any family,
every individual, organization, and service has its own identity,
and has dignity, purpose, and value. Tri-Ess, an organization for
heterosexual crossdressers and their families, is an indispensable
member of our family. As such, we have the obligation to do
everything we can to help Tri-Ess fulfill its purpose. In return,
Tri-Ess has an equal obligation to help IFGE fulfill its purpose.
This is called cooperative action.
Let me give you just some of the ways that IFGE and Tri-
Ess are working together: IFGE’s Winslow Street Fund provided a
sizeable grant for the development of the Spouse’s International
Conference for Education (SPICE). IFGE and Tri-Ess (with
AEGIS, the Outreach Institute, and Renaissance) are co-
sponsoring a booth at the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) conference. Tri-Ess has invited the IFGE Board of
Directors to hold their Fall meeting at Tri-Ess’s Holiday En
Femme, and IFGE has accepted. Eight members of IFGE’s Board
are members of Tri-Ess, and many members of IFGE serve on
Tri-Ess’s Board. The list goes on and on.
I’ll tell you plain. I love Tri-Ess. I love it because of the
leaders, workers, and educators it produces. I love it because it is
an organization that is devoted to fulfilling its purpose, yet
willing to work cooperatively with other organizations. That is
exactly what I wish every organization and service in our
community would do. I keep telling people how I feel about Tri-
Ess and how IFGE supports Tri-Ess. I keep saying how important
it is that the members of our community respect each other, and
be able to work together. However, I also keep warning people
that we have no chance of working together
if we keep finding excuses to not work
together. Even more important, we have no
chance whatever of overcoming other
people’s bigotry if we can’t overcome our
own. If we cannot overcome our own
prejudices and unwillingness to work
together, the consequences are clear. Our
lives will not improve, and neither will the
lives of those people we are trying to help.
You can imagine how frustrated I feel when people do not hear or
understand the message. The authors of the two letters I
mentioned earlier clearly did not understand.
As I said, IFGE’s attitude towards Tri-Ess is one of love,
respect, and cooperation. Unfortunately, we have no control over
the attitudes of individuals. Apparently, an argument (or
disagreement, or misunderstanding, or whatever) between a
member of IFGE and a member of Tri-Ess is what prompted the
first letter. Let me give you an idea of what it said. The entire
letter was laced with a healthy supply of terms like “hate trip,”
“gender wars,” “gender monsters,” and “bigotry.” Implanted in the
middle of this venomous diatribe was the following: “I feel it is
necessary to protest what appears to be IFGE’s official policy that
Tri-Ess is discriminatory, homophobic and intolerant of other
members of the gender community.” This person used a private
dispute to accuse IFGE of calling Tri-Ess a bunch of homophobic
bigots! I was absolutely stunned. There was unequivocally no
truth to the accusation whatsoever, but I could see a tempest
coming, and was powerless to stop it.
Sure enough, my fears were realized. That insidious letter
found its way into the hands of both the Tri-Ess and the IFGE
Boards of Directors. Suddenly the wires were hot with appeals for
damage control. Despite our efforts, the ripple effect found its way
into our respective memberships and beyond, causing old biases
“This criticism of the NWC
creates a no win situation. If
it stays exclusive it gets
accused of being exclusive. If
it becomes inclusive , it loses
its reason for being. No one
wins .”
34
Issue 4f 6
‘IransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
and fears to rear their ugly heads once again. What had started off
as a disagreement between two individuals had suddenly escalated
into a potentially destructive situation not only for both IFGE and
Tri-Ess, but for our community as a whole. Thankfully, cool
heads prevailed, apologies were made, and another crisis had
passed (but not without a lot of Rolaids and aspirin).
The problem was not just with the letter, nor was it with the
comments that prompted the letter. The real problem was the
attitude that both the letter and the comments exhibited. Attitude!
Trying to get people to overcome their anger, their fears, and their
biases, and trying to get people to see the damage their anger and
bigotry can cause, can be so God-awful disheartening. Trying to
get people to understand is like picking fist-fights with the fog.
It’s like painting a beautiful landscape on the sidewalk for all to
see, only to have some blind fool with muddy boots walk through
the middle of it.
As disconcerting and dangerous as the first letter was, the
second one was even worse. Now, I’m a firm believer in the
importance of political, social, and educational activism. After all,
we are all advocates for something. Perhaps we are advocates for a
happier safer world, or for the freedom of gender expression, or
simply for the right to eat potato chips in bed. Actively pursuing
an objective is how things get accomplished. However, I also
believe there is nothing so dangerous as an activist that is in
search of something to be an activist about, and is oblivious to
the consequences of his or her actions. Messes get created that are
almost impossible to clean up, and that is exactly what happened
with the second letter.
The issue concerned the policy of the New Woman
Conference (NWC) being for post-operative male-to-female
transsexuals (new women) only. The author of the letter wanted
the NWC to be opened to all people who were self-identified as
transsexual women, regardless of whether or not they have had
surgery. The threat was that if NWC ’94 was not open to all
transsexual women that a gang of transsexual activists was going
to disrupt the event.
Before I tell you what the letter said, and the consequences of
it, let me tell you a bit about the New Woman Conference. The
NWC was a lovely little event (less than 30 participants) founded
by a group of educators and leaders who also happened to be new
women. The purpose of the NWC was to celebrate the completion
of what could arguably called the most profound transformation a
human being could undergo. It was a private event for very special
people to bond, to laugh, and cry, and share. The NWC came into
existence because of the initiative and leadership of those new
women, and because of the logistical and financial support of both
the Outreach Institute and IFGE. The NWC came into existence
because a special need was identified, and individuals,
collaborating with our community as a whole, worked together to
satisfy that need. The NWC was a magnificent example erf what
can happen if each individual works for the benefit of all, and all
of us, as a community, work together for the benefit of each
individual. As Alexandre Dumas so eloquently put it, “One for
all, and all for one!”
Now, let’s look at the rhetoric used in the second letter.
(Keep in mind that the purpose of the letter was to get self-
identified transsexual women who had not yet had surgery invited
to the NWC.) “A storm is fast approaching our community, and
its name is ‘ EXCLUSION ... By limiting diversity, we limit
ourselves. ... Stopping the discrimination of people because they
are different is what the Human Rights movement is all about. ...
Should they be turned away [speaking of those who intended to
crash the party], it’ll only deepen the rift in the community. ...
The community is becoming annoyed with the elitist position
taken by people who have had surgery. ... The origin of this caste
system is a construct perpetrated upon us by the doctors and the
Benjamin Standards of Care. ... We are responsible for the
perpetuation of this classism and now must pay the bill of Post-
Op Elitism. ... When an empowered group of people excludes a
disempowered group, it’s called discrimination. ... Let’s stop
dividing ourselves.”
Oh, the poor NWC! It is now accused of being exclusionary,
of limiting diversity, and of being discriminatory. It was accused
of causing a rift in the community, of being classist, and elitist
Caste system? Classist and elitist? It sounded like text from The
Communist Manifesto. That stinker of a letter was written to get
a reaction. It succeeded admirably, although the reaction was
probably not the one the author had hoped few. There were a few
people who supported the letter, but for the most part it caused an
explosion of anger and defiance. It caused a rift within the NWC
as well as among the transsexual activists. By making the NWC
an object of political controversy, it damaged the NWC’s ability
to fulfill its purpose. By creating an atmosphere of confrontation,
it not only damaged the transsexual community’s ability to work
together, it damaged the ability of our community as a whole to
work together. In turn, the ripple effect damaged the ability of our
community to work with other communities. It has created an
ugly atmosphere of conflict and distrust, rather than cooperation.
The real tragedy of all this is that I sincerely believe the author
was trying to do the right thing. The lesson to be learned is, those
who use this kind of rhetoric to warn us of a possible rift in the
community, can usually find a way to make it happen. The author
of this letter has succeeded in making it happen.
Another problem was that the author’s idea of community
consisted exclusively of self-identified male-to-female
transsexuals. That effectively eliminated female-to-male
transsexuals. It also eliminated those who were not transsexuals,
those who didn’t have any idea who or what they were, and those
who may be eligible but didn’t wish to be identified with such a
community. It’s difficult to be more exclusionary, discriminatory
and elitist than that. There is a word for those who advocate for
inclusion but practice exclusion. It’s called hypocrisy. There is
another word for those who advocate for inclusion for
organizations and events that can only be effective if they remain
exclusive. It’s called irresponsible. No organization and no event
can be all things to all people, least of all the New Woman
Conference.
The last, and perhaps the greatest problem is the rhetoric
itself. It is the same kind of language that has been used to attack
35
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of ‘Transsaputf feminism
Autumn 1994
Tn-Ess, and IFGE, and the Holiday En Femme, and the Coming
Together Convention. It is the same kind of language that has
been used to attack every community, sub-community, group,
service, or event that caters to a specific group of people, or a
specific need. It is the same kind of rhetoric that is pandemic in
our community, in our communications, and our newsletters. It is
the same kind of rhetoric used in the first letter.
Both letters briefly hinted at the benefits of unity and
cooperation. That’s nice. Then, between those sparsely used
niceties, both authors became overwhelmed by their own
hotheaded magniloquence. They let their passions overcome their
common sense, and they spewed out the kind of reckless jargon
that makes people angry and defensive, and makes unity and
cooperation impossible.
The words “exclusionary” and “discriminatory” were used as
though they were the same thing, and then IFGE, Tn-Ess and the
NWC were criticized on that basis. These words do not mean the
same thing. “Exclusionary” means separate, or apart, and
“discriminatory” means prejudice or bigotry. Both Tri-Ess and the
NWC cater to a specific group of people in our community. Of
course they are exclusionary. They are also selective. If they
weren’t, they wouldn’t be effective. Because they are exclusionary
and selective does not make them bad people. That does not make
them prejudiced, bigoted, homophobic, classist, elitist,
chauvinistic, or any other negative adjective you can think of. It
simply allows them to fulfill their purpose.
The leaders, members and participants of Tri-Ess and the
NWC are good people fulfilling a specific need. 1 would even go
so far as to say the authors of these two letters are both good and
well-intentioned people. I just don’t think they fully realized the
damage they could do. For that matter, I don’t think any of us
truly realize the damage we can do when we let our passions and
our biases get the better of us. When will we ever learn? Perhaps
never. In that case, the best we can do is hang our heads and say,
“Forgive us, for we know not what we do.”
Every one of us is an individual with different interests, and
different needs. We are all bound to have our own opinions, and
have misunderstandings, and bouts of anger and defiance.
However, if we build a solid foundation, a strong sense of family,
we can build on the good and survive the bad. We can tend to our
own needs and allow others to tend to their needs without ever
feeling abandoned or excluded. We can always feel that we are part
of something that is greater than ourselves, something that will
always be there for us. We can acknowledge that there will be
disagreements, misunderstandings, and squabbles. But we can
survive. After all, it’s all in the family.
Addendum: An Open Letter to the
Membership of the New Woman Conference
Dear :
Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to Wendi Kaiser
concerning Riki Anne Wilchins's and Denise Norris's initiative to
make the NWC more "inclusive." Needless to say, I don't
support that proposition.
Apparently, this issue is touching off a Firestorm of debate. I
see words and terms like ' exclusion ', 'limiting diversity', 'loss of
magic', 'empowerment', 'discrimination', 'gender rights', 'rift in
the community’, 'the perpetuation of classism', 'post-op elitism',
and so on. Since I have been working for our community for
nearly 20 years now, these words and terms (and many others like
them) have become very familiar to me. Sadly, they have power
but little meaning, and virtually no benefit.
The criticism being leveled at the NWC is very' confusing.
Who do the critics want included? Who do they want excluded? If
the NWC became inclusive, what would the purpose of the NWC
be? Would anything be gained if the NWC were turned into
something that it is not? What would happen to the people who
benefit from the NWC the way it is? If the NWC were to have a
purpose, it would, by its nature, be exclusive. It would limit
diversity. It would discriminate. It might be perceived as
violating somebody's gender rights, it might be accused of creat-
ing a rift in the community, and it would be accused of being
elitist. This criticism of the NWC creates a no win situation. If
it stays exclusive it gets accused of being exclusive. If it
becomes inclusive, it loses its reason for being. No one wins.
The NWC was created to serve some (not all) the wants and
needs of some (not all) new women and their loved ones. It was
not created to cater to all new women, and it was certainly not
created to cater to the needs of all transsexually identified people.
The NWC, by its nature, is exclusive, and that's OK. If it wasn't,
it wouldn't work.
If there are members of our community whose needs are not
being met, let us work together to find ways to meet those needs
without screwing up the good things we already have.
As you know. I'm the Founder of the International
Foundation for Gender Education (IFGE), the Tapestry, the
Tiffany Club, and a few other things. In 1976, when we first
started, our objective was to build an organization that would be
of actual and effective service to the TV/TS (our) community', and
all persons affected by that community. It did not take long to
realize that no organization, service, publication, or event could
be all things to all people. However, that realization did not
diminish the desire to serve our people and the people whose lives
we touch. It just made us rethink how we could achieve that
goal. For starters, it became necessary to acknowledge that our
community was a rainbow of incredible diversity'. However, it
was just one rainbow. The "rainbow of diversity" includes a great
deal more than a vast spectrum of wants and needs. It also
includes a vast spectrum of people with different desires, goals,
and talents. It also includes hundreds of organizations, services,
and events designed to cater to those different wants, needs,
desires, goals, and talents. It includes people who want to help,
and people who don't. (Those that don't want to help are fine, so
long as they stay out of the way of those who do.)
If we are to effectively serve our community, we must first
gather around us the people who actually want to serve our
community. Let us gather our leaders, workers, teachers, and
helpers and give them a common or universal goal, an objective
with which we can all agree. The common objective we have
36
Issue # 6
‘IransSisters: the journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1394
been focused on for the last 20 years is to build a healthier,
happier, more balanced world in which to live, a world built on
love and respect. The rainbow represents the world. It also
represents our community, and those affected by our community.
Love and respect are common motivations. If love and
respect are the common motivations, then vanity, power, conceit,
greed, private agendas, "classism," and all the other negative
"isms" are not factors.
The next step is for these leaders, workers, teachers, and
helpers to recognize the rainbow is made up of a vast variety of
colors (niches). We must then identify those colors and make
them shine. Every niche must be filled.
There are two great dangers. The first great danger is that the
leaders, workers, teachers, and helpers might become so attached
to their respective niches that they lose sight of the rainbow.
When that happens, competition, conflict, isolationism,
indifference, and snobbery set in, and every
niche suffers. The second great danger is
that the leaders, workers, teachers, and
helpers become so overwhelmed by their
own private motivations and agendas that
they not only lose sight of the rainbow, they
lose sight of their own niche. Again, every
niche, especially their own, suffers.
Stay focused on the universal objective.
Stay focused on the universal motivations. Fill the niches.
Think global, act local. Also, never forget that the real reward
comes not from satisfying our own needs. It comes from helping
other people satisfy theirs.
The challenge was for all of us, as a community, and not any
single organization or event, to address the needs of each niche of
the rainbow without losing sight of the rainbow as a whole. In
other words (in current political chic), for each member and friend
of our community to act local but think global. The problem
was every time we tried to address the needs of a particular niche,
or one niche became successful, we were confronted with cries of
"exclusion," "discrimination," "rift in the community,"
"classism," and "elitism." Now, with the success of the New
Woman Conference, that same old problem has reared its ugly
head one more time.
The NWC was one tiny niche that needed to be filled. That
niche was filled because the event's organizers went to others (first
the Outreach Institute and then IFOE) for help. These organiza-
tions responded, and provided funding and marketing. The money
was raised, the word was put out, and NWC became a reality. It
became a reality because of the support of people who were not
themselves new women. The point is that although the New
Women's Conference has a very narrow focus and caters to a very
select group of people, the NWC came into existence and was
successful because of the respect and support of a great many
people. Most of those people would never directly benefit from
the event The NWC happened because of a sense of community,
not in spite of it
The community supported the NWC, and members of the
NWC supported the community. The same is true of other
special interest events, such as SPICE, ICTLEP, an many others.
As it was with them, so it will be with many more organizations
and events yet to come. Community works both ways. The com-
munity supports the individual. The individual supports the
community. Everyone wins. There was no exclusion, no
limiting diversity, no disempowerment, no discrimination, no
loss of gender rights, no rift in the community, no perpetuation
of classism, and no post-op elitism.
The NWC fills a niche. It is a beautiful, and very special
niche for special people. Please, don't screw it up by trying to
expand it to encompass other niches. It won't work. Confronta-
tional rhetoric won't work either. It never has. We can bitch,
yell and scream until we're purple, and it won't accomplish
anything good. All that will happen is the perpetuation of an
atmosphere of anger, defiance, and a clash of egos. Any
possibility of respect and cooperative action will go flying right
out the window, and the wounds that would
be inflicted will become almost impossible
to heal. Trust me. After long, painful,
personal experience, I know what I'm
talking about Instead, let us acknowledge
and respect each other's differences, and each
other's needs. Let us communicate in a
positive and constructive way, and work
together to fill the niches that need to be
filled.
Respect: We have a mandate, which is to respect other
people's differences, and needs. If we do not accept the obligation
to respect (whether we feel like it or not), the result is intolerance,
discrimination, and outright bigotry. We cannot afford bigotry in
our community. If we become bigots ourselves, then we have no
chance of working cooperatively together, and we have absolutely
no chance of helping other people overcome their bigotry.
Without respect we condemn ourselves and all our brothers and
sisters who will follow.
Communications, cooperative action: The International
Foundation for Gender Education was created to pool the
collective resources of our community for the benefit of all. The
Tapestry was created to be an outreach and educational tool, to
process information, and to be a communications device. The
Coming Together Convention was created to be our community's
convention, and to tend to the business of our community as a
whole. The Winslow Street Fund and the Christine Jorgensen
Fund were created to provide grants. The Congress of Transgen-
dered Organizations was created to provide a communications
network and a mutual support system. The Male-to-Female
Conference was created to educate people about transsexual issues.
The International Conference cm Trans gendered Law & Economic
Policy (ICTLEP) was created to address legal issues. Transgender
Nation was created to address political issues. Fantasia Fair was
created to provide a personal growth experience. The Texas T
Party is a party. The New Woman Conference was created for
new women.
For at least the last 20 years we have been building the tools
that would enable us to (continued on page 41)
“The NWC fills a niche. It
is a beautiful , and very
special niche for special
people. Please , donyt screw
it up by trying to expand it
to encompass other niches .
It wonyt work.”
37
Issue it 6
*. TransSisters : the Journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
What Precisely Is a New Woman?
by Lynn Elizabeth Walker
Too often, we confuse unity with conformity, and instead of
celebrating our wonderful differences we allow them to divide us.
Unity comes in community, a community that values and
respects its diversity of leaders, our challenge is not to place
limits on that unity, but rather to make that unity real.
The discussion of the question of inclusion of transsexuals
without surgical experience at the New Woman Conference has
been lively and productive, in that it has brought to the attention
of the community some very important and valid concerns and
issues:
•The sight of pre-op morphology, especially in a hot tub
among post-ops, would be most distressing to everyone.
•The content of the seminars and workshops would be of
little or no interest to pre-ops.
•There are other, separate but equal, kinds of conferences (e.g.
FCOW) that would be much more suitable
for pre-ops.
•The NWC is a particularly unusual
bonding experience, centered in the common
experience of sexual reassignment surgery,
and so pre-ops can never understand it or
fully participate.
•It is expensive to take pan in NWC,
and most pre-ops would not elect to attend,
so it would be improper to invite them.
•The experience of sexual reassignment surgery is absolutely
centra] to full transition.
•There is a radical, qualitative difference between post-op
transsexuals and all others.
•A transsexual woman is incomplete until she has
experienced sexual reassignment surgery.
•A transsexual woman is not a real woman until she has
conformed to the dominant culture’s legal definition of female.
•Only post-op transsexual women are qualified to make
decisions about who should be invited to attend the NWC.
A most distressing aspect of this discussion has not had to do
with the content of the dialogue, for the arguments are far from
specious, but rather with who precisely have been discussing
these issues.
Seventy-five years ago, men discussed women’s suffrage, and
then men voted on it. Forty-five years ago, white men discussed
racial integration of the military forces, and then white men
decided to do it. This year, transsexual women with surgical
experience are discussing the advantages and disadvantages of
inviting transsexual women without surgical experience to attend
the New Woman Conference.
Too often, our lives and personal interactions are governed or
dictated by class, privilege, and hierarchical rank. We never seem
to learn the fundamental truths that we are equal (and that some of
us are not more equal than others!), and that by virtue of that
equality we must have (and we have the right to demand) full
equality of representation, of voice. The exclusion of pre-op and
non-op transsexual women from the conversation as well as from
the conference bespeaks a tremendous and unconscionable, if
perhaps unconscious, cultural arrogance which ignores the
awesome unifying power of the totality of the transsexual
experience.
Over many centuries, the dominant culture has defined
womanhood and femininity according to certain norms and it is by
supporting their norms and defending their hetero-patriarchal
biases, values and judgements that certain of us can merit their
acceptance and recognition. That these norms and values exclude
those who for economic, medical or other reasons do not (or can
not) have surgical experience is unfortunate, but is sometimes
viewed as a “necessary evil” or as a way to obtain some select
goals, objectives or human rights, while delaying the attainment
or accomplishment of others until a more opportune or
enlightened time, or sacrificing them
altogether.
One must wonder why more pre-op or
non-op transsexuals have not been invited to
enter the conversation. This issue of
jumping uninvited into a conversation was
raised a few months ago, when several of us
were in discussion with members of the
Stonewall 25 Executive Committee with
regard to the inclusion of the gender
community. At that time Denise Norris made the valuable point
that many had not entered the fray uninvited not because of any
lack of interest but rather because many of us have been taught to
view ourselves as the “fringe of the fringe” at the bottom of some
hierarchy, and so are habituated to a crushing sense of
disempowerment, and expect to be disenfranchised. In light of
that, it is clearly incumbent upon those who are more favorably
placed to work to empower the rest. We have a similar situation
now, among transsexuals. The discussion needs to include all of
us, not just those on the inside.
If all transsexuals are fundamentally equal, then each one
must have the unencumbered right to make decisions about her or
his own life, and each one must be considered and heard when
decisions are made which affect the entire community.
•Because the traditional hetero-patriarchal dominant culture’s
values are often repressive and false.
•Because we must do everything in our power to resist
oppression and question authority.
•Because hierarchies lead to the uneven distribution of power
and resources.
•Because we need to work to develop a unified voice.
•Because we must work to empower our community.
•Because it is the right thing to do.
Within the larger queer community, we are in many ways on
the “cutting edge” inasmuch as we (continued on page 41)
“A most distressing aspect
of this discussion has not
had to do with the content
of the dialogue , for the
arguments are far from
specious, but rather with
who precisely have been
discussing these issues.”
38
Issue # 6
* TransSisters : the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
The NWC and Its Critics
by Rachel Pollack
Every year the conference discusses it Every year we take up
the issue and give it the serious examination it deserves. Last
year, the discussion took place near the end of the conference, on a
hot California day, beside the retreat center’s small swimming
pool. Immediately, the talk became passionate, women speaking
very strongly, eager for their turns. It went on for quite a while,
this discussion. At a certain point, however, a curious fact
emerged: despite all the excitement, nobody disagreed. We all
shared the same point of view. The NWC must remain the way it
is. Involved with a very special experience. Open only to people
who have shared that experience, and their partners.
From the outside, this
might strike people as strange.
Why should people engage in
passionate debate when
everybody agrees? I suspect
that the intensity of the
discussion comes from the
intensity of the NWC
experience, and the understanding that that experience depends on
the unanimity of the people who come there.
Though the modem techniques for transsexual surgery have
existed for several decades, we are just beginning to learn how to
think about surgery, how to understand what it means to us. The
people who have gone through this experience have each done so
for their own compelling reasons. They need the opportunity to
get together and to look at the significance of surgery in their
lives, individually and as a group. And they need to do that alone,
with just each other for company.
The way we all look at surgery has become caught up in a
number of myths and paradoxes. Many transsexual men and
women (by no means all) grow up horrified at the development of
their bodies. They become completely focused on the need to
change their genitals, and feel that they cannot begin to live their
lives until they have brought that change into reality.
Now, a certain myth has developed about this need. The
myth tells us that transsexual people develop the illusion that
surgery will solve all their problems, will make people love
them, will get them the careers they deserve, devoted partners, etc.
And when they find out that not all that much has changed in
their lives they become disillusioned and desperate. Maybe such
people exist. If others tell me they have met such people, fine, I
will not doubt their word. The fact is, however, I have never met
anyone who believed that surgery would solve all their problems.
Not anyone. I have met people who very much wanted surgery,
who had wanted it since early childhood, and believed that with
the surgery they could lead fuller, less marginalized lives. And I
also have met people who did not grow up fixated cm their bodies’
wrongness, but who grew into the idea of surgery after a period of
living cross-gendered lives. But I have never met anyone who
believed that surgery would solve their problems so that they
would not have to do anything themselves. And I certainly have
never met anyone who believed that surgery would magically
transform him or her into a man or a woman.
Nevertheless, this belief in transsexual people’s illusions
about surgery has become so pervasive that a great many people
have felt the need to dismiss surgery as unimportant. To warn
transsexual people that surgery doesn’t mean very much, that it
doesn’t change anything. And many post-surgery women and
men develop a similar attitude, joking about their operations,
treating them matter-of-facdy, describing them as little more than
removing a mole.
But the genitals are not just a minor skin blotch. Genital
surgery is not cosmetic. It involves cutting and reshaping the
very base of our sexuality. It is
profound and meaningful in
very subtle ways. Those who
submit to it--joyously,
expectantly, fearfully— need, and
deserve, to explore just what
the experience has meant in
their lives.
For post-surgery women, the New Women’s Conference
exists for that purpose. It does not exist to establish, or preserve,
an elite. It does not exist to divide people, or to say that people
who have not experienced surgery do not matter, or to label them
as inferior. It serves that one purpose only: to discover what it
means to undergo male-to-female genital surgery. It makes sense
to limit the conference to people who have actually gone through
the experience themselves. It makes no sense at all to insist that
other people attend, simply because they otherwise might feel
inferior, or resent that fact that the conference does not apply to
them.
Does surgery make one person superior to another?
Absolutely not. Are transsexual or transgendered people who do
not have surgery incomplete, or unfinished? Absolutely not.
Does any of this mean that surgery doesn’t matter? No. Surgery
matters a great deal, but not because it makes one person better
than another. It matters to the people who have done it, as a
personal transformation and commitment. It matters in ways
those people themselves may not fully understand. This is why
the NWC exists, to enable women to discover what surgery has
meant, and continues to mean, in their own lives.
Recently, I discussed the issue with a friend from the other
side, a woman who believes strongly that the NWC should open
itself to “pre-op transsexuals” (I put the phrase in quotation makes
since I’m not sure what it means; it seems to commit the very sin
my friend opposes, that of assuming that transsexual people who
have not had surgery are “pre-”, unfinished, incomplete). She told
me of the letters she’d seen attacking her position. One of them,
she said, clearly demonstrated the dangerous attitudes of those who
wanted to keep NWC closed, and thus divide the community. The
“ More than most , transsexual women and men
have had to learn that we cannot control what
other people think about us. And we have
learned that we cannot give up what matters
deeply to us just because other people may
disapprove or misinterpret it.”
39
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
letter writer had remarked that the NWC is not a transsexual
event. To my friend, this demonstrated the arrogance, and denial,
of the majority’ opinion. I suppose she meant that we were trying
to separate ourselves from our roots, or else to deny our lifelong
identities as “transsexuals.”
After our conversation, I thought about my friend’s
comments. It struck me that, no, the NWC is not a transsexual
event. Its focus is, and always has been, much narrower than
that. It deals only with that one issue, male-to-female genital
surgery', and then, only from one perspective, that of people who
have experienced it themselves.
It seems to me that Riki Anne Wilchins and others have tried
to make the NWC into something it is not, a transsexual event,
and then attacked it for not being a proper transsexual event. This
same reasoning leads to false comparisons with the Michigan
Womyn’s Music Festival. The MWMF claims to be for all
women and then excludes a particular group of women on the
grounds that the festival organizers consider them to be men. The
NWC does not claim to exist for all transsexual women. Nor
does it make any judgment whatsoever on women who have not
undergone surgery. It does not label them as inferior, or
unfinished, or ignorant, or of less value. It says nothing at all
about them. Further, the MWMF has set itself up as the premier
cultural event in the world for lesbian women. The NWC makes
no claim whatsoever to serve as a cultural event, not even for its
own small interest group.
I agree with Riki Anne that some people in the transsexual
community consider those who have undergone surgery an elite. I
agree with her that this is unfortunate, that transsexual people do
not need hierarchical separations. Indeed, the category “pre-op”
really makes no sense at all, since you can hardly categorize a
vastly divergent group of people by the simple fact that they did
not do something. People do not undergo surgery for many
different reasons: they cannot afford it, anesthesia frightens them,
they cannot get medical approval, or perhaps most potently,
surgery just does not interest them. They see no need for it The
label “pre-op” for all these people denigrates them and their
choices at the same time that it lumps them all together into an
artificial, meaningless category.
But if I agree with Riki Anne that we need to resist the
artificial separation of pre- and post-op, I do not agree that the
NWC promotes hierarchies, even if some people think it does.
This is a tricky question. If we do something valuable for
ourselves, but which other people find damaging because of their
own misinterpretations, should we stop doing it to avoid that
damage? I think as transsexual people we know the answer to
that question. More than most, transsexual women and men have
had to learn that we cannot control what other people think about
us. And we have learned that we cannot give up what matters
deeply to us because other people may disapprove or misinterpret
it. How many of us delayed transition for years, even decades, so
as not to “hurt” our parents, our spouses, our children, our
friends?
If people misinterpret the NWC, if they find it offensive, or
hurtful;, we can reach out to them, explain why the conference
operates the way it does. If they consider the NWC little more
than a group of elitists celebrating their superiority7 we can tell
them no, it tries to do something much more important. But I do
not think we should sacrifice the NWC itself for the sake of
harmony within the larger community.
And it would be a sacrifice, for the event would certainly
change. 1 do not know how it would change, nobody does, but it
would become something different How could it not? To argue
that we could bring in other people but keep it the same, seems to
me to insult those other people far more than keeping them out
It suggests that they have nothing to offer, nothing to say.
Riki Anne and others have suggested that we can bring in
non-surgical transsexual women but still keep the focus on
surgery. Others have suggested that we allow such women for
just a part of the conference, say an afternoon, or for a particular
workshop. All of these things strike me as more insulting than
insisting that the conference exists only for the people who have
had the experience. It says to those non-surgical women: “You
can come, but we don’t want you to contribute anything.”
Since the first year, NWC has ended with a simple ritual
called the Rite of Passage. Women who have had surgery in the
previous twelve months stand in a circle facing the larger circle of
women who have had surgery earlier in their lives. The women
in the outer circle welcome and bless the “younger” women who
then return the blessing, each woman speaking from the heart,
without any prepared script. Most of those who experience it
describe it as deeply moving. If we opened the conference, what
would we do with the closing ritual? Or, you can take part, but
as an outsider, you can’t stand in the circle? If I was a non-
surgery transsexual woman, I would find that kind of exclusion
much more painful than if someone simply said to me, “Look,
this whole event has a very narrow focus, and therefore only
Rachel Pollack
40
Issue # 6
* TransSisters : the journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Lynn Elizabeth Walker
Meiissa Sherrill Lynn
applies to this one particular group of
women.”
Suppose we created a different kind of
ritual, and a different kind of conference.
Would they carry just as much power, and
affect people just as deeply? Maybe.
Maybe not. The only thing we can say
for sure is that the New Women’s
Conference would cease to exist.
Something else would have replaced it.
And something unique in the world would
have ended.
If the NWC dominated the cultural
landscape of transsexual women, and
nothing existed which embraced the whole
range of transsexual women, then 1 might
see the necessity for some change (and
even, then what about transsexual men?
Mightn’t they argue that the women had
set themselves up as an elite? And what
of non-transsexual women? And non-
transsexual men?). The fact is, however,
that nothing like that situation exists.
The NWC takes place one weekend a year. It has never had more
than twenty or so people attending. And other events certainly
exist to meet the needs of the larger community.
Some months ago, I attended the Full Circle of Women. It
struck me as a wonderful gathering, with women of all sorts—
transsexual, nontranssexual, post-surgery, non-surgery, and many
others-all getting to know each other and to respect their different
needs and choices. It serves a valuable function— a function
entirely different from that of the NWC Is it really not possible
for the world to tolerate two kinds of events?
Rachel Pollack is an eighteen years
postoperative transsexual woman and a
founder of the New Woman Conference. She
is also the creator of the Shining Woman
Tarot deck and has written ten books on the
subject of tarot. She is also the author of
four published science -fiction novels , the
most recent of which, Temporary
Agency, was published in August of this
year. Her third novel. Unquenchable
Fire, which won the Arthur C. Clarke
Award in Britain for best science -fiction
novel of 1988, was also reissued in August.
In addition, she writes the monthly comic
book Doom Patrol, which features the
world’s first transsexual lesbian superhero,
for D.C. /Vertigo Comics. She has written
numerous articles on the subject of
transsexuality which have been published in a
variety of publications. She is a resident of
Rhinebeck, New York.
An Open Letter to the
Membership of the New Woman
Conference
(continued from page 37)
and to work cooperatively together. Build on
what exists and on what has gone before.
Help communicate,us create new tools. If
you want to help, then help. Do not hinder.
Do not try and reinvent the wheel, and do no
harm.
Sincerely,
Merissa Sherrill Lynn
tend to be more visible than many other queers. The visibility we
have may be unwelcome, but still it is here anyway, and we can
use that visibility in radical ways to accomplish tremendous good.
At the Stonewall 25 Rally a couple of months ago, Leslie
Fein berg proposed that “Stonewall means fight back,” and she
called for public commitment to full inclusion of all queer people.
It is to that unity, and to that fight for
equality and empowerment, and against
political, economic and social oppression,
falsehood, and injustice that we are called.
Lynn Elizabeth Walker is a fortyish
transsexual from Brooklyn. She was one of
the co-founders of the Metropolitan Gender
Network, and served as their Chair for two
and one half years, as well as that
organization’s representative to the
International Congress of Transgender
Organizations. She is the founder and
current vice-president of the Greater New
York Gender Alliance, a peer counselor with
the Gender Identity Project of the Lesbian
and Gay Community Services Center and a
member of the Transsexual Menace. Her
work has been published in The TV ITS
Tapestry Journal, Cross -Talk ml
Renaissance News.
Merissa Sherrill Lynn is the Founding
Director of IFGE and Editor-in-Chief
Emeritus of the TVITS Tapestry
Journal. Merissa also serves on the
Executive Committee of the IFGE Board of
Directors. Anyone wishing to contact her
may do so by writing to her at: Merissa
Sherril Lynn; P.O.Box 367 ; Wayland,
Massachusetts 01778-0367.
What Precisely Is a New Woman?
( continued from page 38)
41
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Let Our Sisters Attend
by Denise Norris
(This is the text of a letter that was mailed to all New Woman
Conference attendees in May 1994.)
Dear Sister,
A storm is fast approaching our community and we are all
going to need to keep a clear perspective on the issues to ride it
out. Its name is EXCLUSION and as NWC participants, we are
all squarely in the middle of the problem.
I finally qualified to attend NWC last year. It was a fantastic
experience that I hope to be able to
repeat this year. Several of my close
friends have been involved with NWC
since the beginning and I have always
maintained high hopes for its success.
In this letter, I hope to clarify the issues
around exclusion as 1 see them and make
a case for community unity. When I
first heard of NWC, I had not yet decided
on surgery. Oh, I was pretty sure I was
going to do it, but there was still a good
deal of healthy doubt. When an attendee shared with me a very
general description of what had happened at the first NWC, I
became jealous. I wanted to go. I wanted the bonding, the
friendship. When the second NWC rolled around, about 6 weeks
before my surgery date, there were already cries of exclusion from
the gender community. But I really wanted to go. I told a friend
that I might crash the gate. My friend suggested that I wait. For
once I listened to someone else's advice. When NWC 3 arrived, I
was ready to go, having had my surgery. On the first night of the
conference, as we discussed the exclusion problem, I shared my
plans for NWC 2 with the other attendees. I also remarked at the
time that I felt that NWC should remain closed.
As I see it, we’re all members of the gender community,
first. We always have been. Until forty years ago, there were no
post-op or pre-op people. We didn’t divide ourselves along these
lines. We were all just, well... Gender Outlaws. After Christine
Jorgensen, we have allowed ourselves to become a population
classified and divided by the medical and psychiatric community
and treated as sick individuals who needed to be fixed. We tolerate
the so called professionals who still refer to us as HE even though
they are going to perform the much promised and sought after
operation that will make us into real women. We have dressed in
extremely feminine clothing and hid our true sexual orientation to
please the doctors who held the approvals for the life-saving
procedure. We accepted the lie that we should stop associating
with other transsexuals and act like real women once the surgery
was complete. We were told we were the lucky ones. We were
the few who could have the OPERATION! We sold our soul to
the devil, er, doctors who promised us salvation.
Now, in the 1990s, we are beginning to reclaim our power.
Instead of perceiving ourselves as crippled, diseased, broken and
needing repair, we have begun to realize we are people of
transsexual experience. It is this common transsexual experience
that is the strength of our community. And there is diversity in
that experience, lots of it. Individually, our experiences can and
do vary. The person who decides NOT to transition because of
family or other obligations has an experience that I’ll never
understand. The person who desires surgery, yet is HIV+ and
cannot, is still another. Each person’s unique flavor of experience
contributes to, rather than diminishes, our community.
We who have had surgery need to
stop defining ourselves as 'post-op'
women and discard the assumed privilege
that goes with it. We are not at the top
of the ladder of transsexual experience.
There is no ladder even to be on. We are
people who share a common experience,
the experience of genital surgery. The
experience affects our lives in ways that
are special to us. In the same way it's
very difficult, if not impossible, for nontranssexuals to understand
the transsexual experience, people who have not gone through
surgery are unable to truly understand the surgical experience and
it's ramifications. Nevertheless, there are experiences that other
people have had that are equally important and we will never
understand their needs, either. There is nothing special about the
surgical experience, nothing important, except to the individual
who experiences it. The decision not to have surgery is as
important to a person as the decision to have it. Equal but
different
Several important questions face NWC this year. How we
answer them will reverberate throughout the community. From
my perspective they are:
•Does the surgical experience create unique requirements for
an individual?
Without a doubt. No one will argue with that.
•Do we need a conference that focuses solely on the needs of
people with a surgical experience?
Unquestionably yes. We need to learn so much more about
our experience.
•Should we include people who do not have surgical
experience in such a conference?
Absolutely YES! By limiting diversity, we limit ourselves.
"What!"
"Never!"
“We can’t!"
“NWC will never be the same, no more magic."
"NWC will become a pre-op conference."
"They'll take control."
"The live penis-monster will get us.”
“ . . . internal exclusionary
policies will make it harder to
ridicule and ill-favor the
exclusion of transsexual women
by separatist lesbians . We canyt
confront them when they can
point back at us for doing the
same thing
42
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Okay.. .Okay. ..Listen, I know how you feel. The thought of
including the rest of the community struck fear in my heart, too.
1 said it all. Heard it all. Thought it all. Felt it all. And I
changed my mind.
Since NWC 3, I have reflected deeply on this issue and
discussed it with some NWCers and other people of transsexual
experience. I’ve discussed my fears with many people and finally
separated the rational from the irrational. I listened and learned. I
found the answers I was looking for and overcame the objections
that had been haunting me.
NWC will cease to be a conference for our needs.
Why should it stop meeting our needs? No one is talking about
changing the subject matter of NWC No one I've spoken to
wants to make NWC into a 'Full Circle of Women.' People with
surgical experience need to explore themselves. Many wonderful
things have already happened because of NWC Stating that
NWC is a conference to explore and meet the needs of people with
surgical experience and keeping it that way is NOT exclusionary.
We will be out numbered by the pre>ops at NWC
1 ) Remember, there are not such people as pre-ops. The term is
of very recent origin and given to us by nontranssexuals who'll
never understand us anyhow. 2) If NWC is a conference about our
surgical experience and designed to meet our needs, why would
anyone else want to attend? Sure, we'll get a few people who are
vicarious. But not many people will pay several hundred dollars
in addition to airfare to attend a conference that has nothing to
offer them.
We will lose control of NWC How can we? The
overall agenda is set by the sponsors of NWC I don't expect this
to change much, regardless of who is allowed in. NWC's charter
(or bylaws) should state that NWC is a conference for the needs of
people with surgical experience. Also, NWC is an idea.
Whatever the name, the idea of meeting our own needs without
doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and the rest of the nontranssexuals
has been born and will always be with us.
Well, so much for the rational reasons. Now on to the BIG
irrational ones: THE LIVE PENIS MONSTER and NWC
WILL LOSE ITS MAGIC.
Someone might want to use the hot tub naked
and their genitalia might offend me. So what? Still
having a penis is part of their experience. I'm sure that we have
offended many separatist lesbians by having surgery. Our
'imitation' vaginas are disgusting to them. Whose problem is
that? Ours or theirs? There is nothing wrong with penises. The
real problem is too many of us still have BIG issues with
penises. Once we got rid of ours, we wanted nothing more to do
with them as long as they reminded us of how painful it was for
us before surgery. Seeing transsexuals with penises reminds us of
ourselves, whether it was a year ago, five years, ten years, or
fifteen. Having a penis around is kind of handy to help prod us
back in to reality. Make us deal with issues of growing up
perceived as male and hating it so. When we restructured our
genitalia, we are able to pretend we have resolved these issues,
when in fact we simply have removed the stimulus. A penis in
the hot tub simply dredges up our old issues by serving as that
trigger.
NWC will lose that special quality and never be
the same. Well, NWC will be different, I agree. But NWC
will still have magic and a special quality. It's the people who
make the magic, not the event. What made NWC 3 special ( and I
suspect NWC 1 & NWC 2) was almost everyone there was
focused on becoming empowered and healing. The gestalt of
everyone's power is what we felt. Yet at NWC 3, there were
people who felt out of place or had vastly different experiences
than the rest of the attendees. These people did not detract from
the magic, but they added to it by coloring it in such a way that'll
never be repeated. Nor are people of surgical experience the only
ones with power. Everyone has some form of power. By
blocking people from attending NWC, we not only hurt them, we
hurt ourselves. Had Stephen Hawking been discarded because he
didn't fit in, we would have lost one of the world greatest
theoretical physicists to Cerebral Palsy. Stopping the
discrimination of people because they are different is what the
Human Rights movement is all about.
Since NWC, I've had women who have penises live in my
home. For me, finally facing the live penis monster' was one of
the best things that had ever happened to me since surgery. Many
times I was surprised by the things I learned. Things that helped
me understand my own surgical experience. The irrationally
behind these last blocks to inclusion was exposed and then faded
away.
There has been much talk about an action against NWC to
force us to open our doors. I'd like to set the record straight I've
known Riki Anne Wilchins for all of my life. My real life, not
the half life I lived before I accepted myself as a woman of
transsexual experience. Contrary to rumor, she does not foam at
the mouth over this issue. She is a very careful person who
usually completely thinks out her position before she says or does
anything. Her policy toward NWC and other activism is
'Confront with Love.' I have spent many hours talking to her
about these issues since the first NWC She has refused to attend
NWC on principle, while recognizing the value of the healing and
bonding that makes NWC so special. Riki is a strong
spokesperson for gender rights and I stand shoulder to shoulder
with her on all matters of inclusion. As far as I know at this
time, no one is planning a show of force at NWC 4, and at most,
a small group of people may register and show up. If they are
turned away on whatever grounds that NWC decides, they'll ask
for supporters to join them, request a refund and go quietly off the
conference grounds
(X course, should they be turned away, it'll only deepen the
rift in the community. The balance of the community is
beginning to become annoyed with the elitist position taken by
some of the people who have had surgery. And nghtly so.
Recently, I chanced to have a conversation with a NWC alumni
and she referred to herself as “complete” and everyone who had not
had surgery as “incompletes.” And she is not an isolated case, I
have heard this before from other women. We must put a stop
this. The origin of this caste system (continued on page 47)
43
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
In Support of NWC Policy
by Janis Walworth
Seeing ourselves mirrored in others like us is an important
piece in the lifelong process of constructing a self-identity. For
people who are different from the vast majority of the culture they
live in, this can be done only by purposely gathering in groups
based on similarity. I strongly support the right of any group to
meet on an exclusive basis for the purpose of personal growth.
The New Woman Conference (NWC) serves this purpose for
people who have had male-to-female genital surgery.
Proponents of inclusion liken NWC to the Michigan
Womyn's Music Festival (MWMF.); however, this comparison is
fallacious. First, there is a
difference in how these groups
define themselves. MWMF.
has represented itself as an
event for all women and then
excludes some women by
defining them as men. NWC
states that it is an event for
postoperative transsexual
women and does not exclude
any postoperative transsexual
women. It does not bill itself as an event for all transsexuals and
then try to claim that preoperative transsexuals are not
transsexuals.
Second, the purposes of the two events are different. MWMF.
is largely a recreational event at which you can plop your blanket
down on the grass next to strangers and listen to the music and
get up and leave. NWC is a personal growth event based on the
trust that develops among participants. Much of the appeal of
MWMF. is that it is huge and women can bask in the immensity
and diversity of it all, whereas the very premise of NWC is that
its smallness permits women to experience intimacy and establish
rapport via common experience.
As people who work with small groups are aware, the
dynamics of a group depend on every person present; it is not
possible for a person to be present without affecting what
happens, the chemistry of the group, and the content of the
discussion. In fact, it is not only the right but the obligation of
leaders of personal growth groups to "select group members
whose needs and goals are compatible with the established goals
of the group [and] who will not impede the group process...."
( Ethical Guidelines for Group Leaders , 1 980). The fact that NWC
is run more by consensus than by a leader does not relieve
decision-makers of this responsibility.
The third difference between MWMF. and NWC is that the
power dynamics are different. At MWMF., nontranssexual
women, who are in the vast majority and are relatively
empowered, are excluding transsexual women, who are a tiny,
disenfranchised minority, and there is a history of oppression of
transsexual women by nontranssexual women. On the other
hand, it is not clear that postops are a majority of transsexuals,
that they wield significantly more power than preops, or that there
has been a history of oppression of one group by the other. It has
been argued that a class system exists among transsexuals in
which postops are the elite. This is an issue worth addressing.
However, many women who attend NWC do not consider
themselves better than those who have not had surgery, and the
existence of NWC does not imply that they are. Elitism does not
translate into a power differential unless all parties buy into it.
Preops can choose to empower themselves rather than hand power
over to postops by considering them more advanced or complete.
Proponents of inclusion
argue that the NWC agenda can
remain focused on postop
issues despite the attendance of
preops. However, the
workshop topics are not
formulated in concrete bylaws
or decreed by an authoritarian
leadership— the agenda evolves
from the participants. In order
to keep the workshops focused
on postop issues, any preops who attended the conference would
have to be excluded from the process of developing the agenda.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the influence of preops
could be minimized by setting a quota on the number who can
attend. However, both of these tactics (as well as any other
strategy for restricting the power of certain kinds of people in
attendance) more clearly establishes a class system with a power
differential than does holding an event that is just for postops.
It would be fairer to compare NWC to small personal growth
and support groups in other disenfranchised communities than to
attempt to draw parallels with MWMF. Other groups that have
suffered discrimination and exclusion recognize the importance of
relating some of the time in small, narrowly defined groups; they
do not insist that all events for any of their members must be
open to all their members. A support group for Jewish lesbians
does not have to welcome all Jews or all lesbians, and people who
are excluded from such a group are generally content to be
excluded. Why, then, is NWC the focus of dissension in the
transsexual community? Are the rules different here? I suspect
that some people feel they are, because there are so few events for
transsexuals. But does it make sense, in addressing this issue, to
endanger these few events?
NWC is a fragile effort, run largely on the personal funds of a
few individuals, on a barely break-even budget. Finding a suitable
site that will welcome transsexuals is a tremendous hurdle each
year, and the many hours needed to organize the conference are
donated by women who are already overextended. NWC has
provided an important growth and healing experience for a few
dozen individuals over the past three years. This effort should be
“The idea that exclusion is always bad and
inclusion is always good is very simplistic
thinking. If inclusion is always right, . .
.why should inclusion stop with transsexuals ?
Obviously, those who argue for inclusion are
still drawing a line about who should be
welcome— they* re just drawing it in a different
place than a consensus of NWC participants
has drawn it.**
44
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
applauded and supported. Directing anger at NWC for not
fulfilling the needs of all transsexuals is misguided and
destructive. Confrontational tactics could cause the cancellation
of the conference, as well as discourage would-be organizers of
other (community-wide or more limited) transgender events.*
Organizers of any conference must consider many factors, not
the least of which is the economic viability of the undertaking. If
NWC were open to all transsexual women, it is likely that many
who value it as a postop event would not attend. Proponents of
inclusion believe that if the agenda remained focused on postop
issues, very few preops would attend. At Full Circle of Women,
a conference that included preops, nonops, and postops, the
inclusionists themselves did not attend. Thus, there is no basis
for assuming that NWC would be a financially viable event if it
were open to all transsexual women, and every reason to believe
that this would spell its demise.
The idea that exclusion is always bad and inclusion is always
good is very simplistic thinking. If inclusion is always right,
why aren't the inclusionists advocating opemng NWC to female-
to-male transsexuals? Why should inclusion stop with
transsexuals? Maybe NWC should be open to crossdressers. Why
not drag queens, gay and bisexual women and
men, even ordinary straight people? Obviously,
those who argue for inclusion are still drawing a
line about who should be welcome— they’re just
drawing it in a different place than a consensus of
NWC participants has drawn it.
Some who advocate inclusion contend that
excluding preops is based on penis-phobia and the
unresolved issues many transsexual women have
about having had unwanted male genitalia. Seven
women who had attended NWC at least once were
at the Full Circle of Women conference; none had
a problem sharing the hot tub with women with
penises, and all favor keeping NWC open only to
postops (in fact, four are among the most vocal
to become a large gathering. These decisions do not imply that
women are better then men, that postops are better than preops, or
that small is better than large— only that the scope of this
conference is limited. Discussion of these issues continues every
year (with or without prompting from dissenters), and the shape
that NWC should take in the future is an area erf deep concern.
It is easy to set NWC up as a target for our frustrations and
blame it for all that is wrong with the community; it is harder to
look within ourselves for sources of healing power. The energies
of all of us who care about the transsexual community would be
better spent on positive efforts to promote unity and to create a
rich assortment of structures. We should be asking what events
are needed and how we can make them happen. How can we
nurture what's good in our community, and what challenges do we
need to overcome? What kinds of support are needed by different
parts of the community? Do we need a better flow of
information? Outreach to transgendered youth? Legislative
efforts? Financial aid for surgery? Education of the general
public? We can create what we need. But not with anger and
provocation. If we trample each tender seedling because it's
blossom is not all we had wished for, we may be left with a very
barren landscape indeed.
Janis Walworth
photo by Fran Windier
Janis Walworth has been a member of the lesbian
community since before the Stonewall Rebellion,
and has been active in the transsexual community
for several years, including being the principal
organizer of the protest against the Michigan
Womyn’s Music Festival’s 4,womyn born
womyn " only policy and of the Full Circle of
Women Conference. She leads workshops about
gender and sexuality for women of varied gender
backgrounds and sexual orientations. Janis is
also a mother, the managing editor of The
Journal of Gender Studies, a graduate
student, and a resident of Ashby, Massachusetts.
spokeswomen on this point). On the other hand, women
who claim to have overcome their penis-phobia were not
there. The evidence fails to support any connection
between exclusionism and penis-phobia.
NWC was never meant to be all things to all
transsexuals. Nor does NWC attempt to solve all the
problems of society— it cannot undo sexism, classism,
transphobia, homophobia, and all the other ills that affect
our community. Recognizing that resources, both personal
and financial, were limited, participants at the first NWC
made decisions about where to focus their energy. It was
decided, for example, that NWC would remain an event for
women, not for men; that NWC would be for postops, not
for preops; and that NWC would remain small and not try
*In fact, this year anticipated unpleasantness over the
NWC policy caused at least eight people to decide against
attending, which may be enough to force cancellation of
the event.
omen...
A radically
different,
politically
incorrect
exploration of
wnat it means
to be a woman
GWl^rcfj 3t-£\pHf 2, 1995
Open to all individuals who identify as women. For information:
Janis Walworth, PO Box 52, Ashby, MA 01431, 508-386-7737.
45
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
The New Woman
Conference is Hypocritical
by Christine Beatty
As a feminist, I object to autocratic, dictatorial or otherwise
elitist decisions being made, especially in such a small
disempowered community as ours. I believe that exclusion
without consensus is wrong, and so, like some women are
boycotting the Michigan Women's Music Festival because of its
exclusionary policy toward transsexuals, I am boycotting the New
Women's Conference for its exclusion of pre- and non-operative
transsexuals. We are clearly hypocritical for
protesting our treatment at Michigan and
then supporting an event that is no less
exclusionary. And for the life of me, 1 can't
figure out why our community would
support such hypocrisy and why some of us
can't even see that's exactly what it is.
The parallels between the NWC and MWMF are obvious to
anyone who doesn't have a lot invested in denial of the
similarities. Like the MWMF, the NWC organizers decided it
would be a separatist event without determining how the majority
of attendees might feel about it. I've seen this event promoted for
several years in a row, and I’ve never seen this question asked. At
least the NWC was out front about it from the start. However,
since the producers haven't ascertained how all participants feel
about this policy, they are just as dictatorial as the MWMFs
bosses. If the consensus was that any transgendered woman should
be able to attend, would the organizers of NWC respond the way
the MWMPs producers have, by autocratically ignoring it?
Maybe the NWC might set an example by taking such a poll and
then setting policy by the results.
Why does this conference need to be a separatist event? It
smacks of elitism to partition our community based on surgical
status or any other criteria. The post-ops-only aspect of this
conference helps perpetuate the surgery-equals-success myth
prevalent among most transsexuals, and it is unabashedly
divisive. We need a whole lot less of "us and them" in the face of
our common concerns. By continuing with this policy we leave
out a lot of people who are already excluded from so much just for
cross-living. We don't like being excluded from MWMF, so how
can we justify doing the same thing?
And it IS the same thing. Challenge your denial and face the
facts. While the MWMPs policy was unstated for a long time, it
is obvious that the intent is that only genetic (non-transsexual)
women are welcome. The NWC is very clear about its intent.
Both events have intended target participants, so what really
differentiates the two? As one post-op TS who is a supporter of
the NWC's policy told me, "special events are okay." Well, the
“7/ smacks of elitism to
partition our community
based on surgical status or
any other criteria.”
MWMF is by definition (with its intended non-transsexual
audience) a special event, so how is the NWC any different?
It isn't.
When you consider it, the NWC's policy reflects an even
worse situation because while there are many non-exclusionary
women's festivals that provide some alternative to the MWMF,
there are very few alternative transsexual conferences. Most
"gender" conventions are largely geared to crossdressers, and many
transsexuals don't feel comfortable attending conferences with
people who don't understand them. And
events such as Full Circle of Women are not
transgender-specific. The NWC comes the
closest to being a transsexual event that
could foster some unity', but because of the
separatist nature it misses that mark.
Any transsexual person who has already taken the drastic step
of living full-time in their new gender role is already a "New
Woman" (or "New Man") in my book. Anybody who is at that
stage has already experienced enough rejection, bigotry, self-
doubt, emotional upheaval, physical distress and other
unpleasantness to qualify for membership in this very exclusive
club. Why do we need Gold Key (elite) members? Why do we
THE JOURNAL OF
GENDER STUDIES
At Last... A Professional Publication that:
•Features articles on all aspects of the gender
issues (for females and males)
•Introduces excerpts from new titles on gender
both fiction and nonfiction
•Reviews selected titles on various aspects of the
gender world
•Includes works of poetry, arts (where feasible)
and theater on gender questions
Truly a must for all students of the sociology, anthropology and
psychology of gender perceptions, roles, and lifestyle options
Outreach Institute
Publication Dept. (JGS)
406 Western Ave., Suite 345
South Portland, ME 04106
Subscriptions are $16 for 1 year or $30 for 2 years.
A complimentary copy will be sent on written request.
46
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
need to make pre-op and non-op transsexuals feel
missing out for not having had SRS? Why can't
we foster some unity?
The NWC could and should be open to all
self-identified transsexuals regardless of surgical
status or intention. There is no reason why
workshops cannot be scheduled to deal with
post-op issues. Although 1 would not want to
see those or any other seminars exclude people, I
suppose that I would support separatist
workshops to further the cause of an inclusive
conference if some of the participants absolutely
could not tolerate the presence of unoperated-
upon transgender women.
We need to learn to stand together. As a
small community that faces much adversity and
tribulation, we do ourselves a disservice by
creating division amongst ourselves. Though we
may have our differences they are insignificant
beside our commonalities. Instead of finding
ways to separate, we need to find ways to
include each other.
You know, the way tha^t we want to be
treated?
Christine Beatty is an author, musician and
corporate computer drone who lives in San
Francisco. Christine’s latest book. Misery
Loves Company , is a collection of short
stories and poetry based on her experience as a
transsexual and former prostitute and drug addict.
She has also just been published in a
gay/lesbian anthology called Beyond
Definition from Manic D Press and is
currently assembling with her lover
Rynata a “modem metal” rock band called
Glamazon.
like they are off our high
Let Oar Sisters Attend
(continued from page 43)
is not from within our community, but is
a construct perpetrated upon us by the
doctors, psychiatrists, clinics and the
Benjamin Standards of Care which
generally and incorrectly assume that the
object is to reach surgery and most
members of the gender community want to
or will have surgery. While not at fault
for starting it, we are responsible for the
perpetuation of this classism and now
must pay the bill for 40 years of post-op
elitism. We must face the fact that
women with surgical experience are a
minority in the gender community and if
we want to participate in it, we need to get
horse. The community is quickly dispelling the
post-op myths and we need to change our act
before we find ourselves unwanted and unneeded.
Also, internal exclusionary' policies will make
it harder to ridicule and ill-favor the exclusion of
transsexual women by separatist lesbians. We
can't confront them when they can point back at
us for doing the same thing. And it is the same
thing. It's not a question of body count, but of
the relative level of empowerment. When an
empowered group of people excludes a
disempowered group because an of attribute
undesirable to the empowered group, it’s called
discrimination. It can be racism (whites to
blacks), sexism (men to women), genderism
(lesbians to transsexuals), or classism (NWC) and
it’s still wrong.
Let's stop dividing ourselves. We're few
enough in numbers already. Let's work together
to build a community. A strong community
based on diversity, not conformity. There are
bigger issues that face us; health care, the
religious right, AIDS just to name a few. Show
your support of community unity and diversity,
tell Wendi Kaiser to let our sisters in. Let’s
welcome them to NWC 4 and put this matter to
rest.
Sincerely,
Denise
Ms. Norris is a co-founder of The
Transsexual Menace and a political activist.
When she is not fighting gender
oppression, she is busy developing an
on-line information service for the gender
and gay community. To pay her bills, she
also moonlights as a computer consultant
implementing advanced global computer
networks. She is divorced with one child
and lives in downtown New York City.
She is 6’4” tall and does NOT play
basketball! She can be reached for
comment via Internet e-mail at
denisen@virtualx.com or on-line at The
Virtual Exchange (212/267-5030).
Denise Norris
Trans* Action News
(continued from page 13)
August, Rep. Eighmey presented a copy of
Minnesota’s recently enacted anti-
discrimination statute, and with the help of
others in attendance, proceeded to draft the
more inclusive definition of sexual
orientation that is in its present form.
47
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1394
Let NWC Be NWC
by Davina Anne Gabriel
The motto of the activist organization the Transsexual
Menace is “Confront With Love,” and its co-founder Riki Anne
Wilchins claims that this is exactly what she is doing by
challenging the postoperative transsexual women only policy of
the New Woman Conference. But while I do categorically
support her nght to challenge this policy on whatever grounds
that she chooses, I also find it to be a very considerable stretch of
the imagination to characterize the manner in which she has gone
about doing so as anything that can even be remotely described as
resembling “love.” And not only is it by no means “love,” it
likewise is most certainly not
“sisterhood” or “feminism” or
anything even remotely
resembling those things either.
It is truly a travesty to debase
such fine and noble sentiments
as these by equating them with
the base and mean-spirited
attacks that have been directed
at those individuals who
support the postoperative
women only policy of the NWC, and it is likewise a certainty
that those criticisms have indeed gone far beyond merely
addressing the policy itself, but have also impugned the character
and the motives of the individuals who formulated this policy and
those who support it. No, there is another term that more aptly
describes the criticisms that have been directed at the policy of
the NWC and its supporters, and that word is demagoguery.
The essence of demagoguery is the misrepresentation and
caricaturization of an opponent’s position. This is an age old
technique, the advantage of which is that it enables one to not
have to respond to the actual arguments of one’s opponents, but
to instead discredit them by fabricating and attributing false
motivations and arguments to them. And this is exactly what the
critics of NWC’s policy have done.
There are a number of different issues affecting the
transsexual community that reasonable persons within it can agree
to disagree about reasonably, and whether or not it is appropriate
and acceptable for postoperative transsexual women to have an
event that is exclusively for themselves is one of these issues. It
is therefore extremely disheartening to have had to witness the
malicious smear-campaign and complete and utter distortion of the
positions of those who believe that such an event is appropriate
and acceptable, as well as the personal vilification that has been
directed toward them by those who do not
I deeply regret that at least one of my sisters who likewise
supports the NWC policy has decided to respond in kind. I do not
agree with or approve erf such a response, but I do understand that
it is a natural human inclination to strike back in kind when one
has been unfairly attacked. I do not, however, believe that her
sentiments represent the opinions of any of the other numerous
women who support the NWC policy, or that any of them
approve of her response.
At the heart of NWC’ s critics’ argument is the allegation of
“phallophobia,” which Denise Norris defined in a letter dated 18
July 1994 to the membership of NWC as “an irrational fear of
penises.” Critics of the NWC policy allege that this is the true
underlying and unacknowledged reason for the existence of the
postoperative women only policy, and that this is an underlying
psychopathology that the rest of
us are all just unable and/or
unwilling to face. Yet they
have not provided one single
scintilla of conclusive evidence
to substantiate such an
allegation; but have instead
relied on mere supposition and
speculation to substantiate this
charge. Moreover, an
examination of the actual facts
of the matter reveals that absolutely nothing could be further from
the truth.
Earlier this year, I attended the Full Circle of Women
Conference, which was defined as being for anyone living as a
woman, regardless of anatomy. There were a total of twenty-
seven women present, including postoperative, preoperative,
transgendered and nontranssexual women. Among those twenty-
seven women were at least eight women who support the
postoperative women only policy of the NWC, seven of whom
had actually attended it (I have never attended NWC because of
financial reasons, but would very much like to attend it). None of
these eight women had any qualms whatsoever about spending
time in the hot tub with preoperative women, and in fact, spent a
considerable amount erf time doing exactly that. In fact, everyone
there, including these eight women, seemed to spend more time
lounging around in the hot tub than doing anything else.
I am a member of a local Witches’ coven comprised of both
men and women. We perform rituals two or three times per
month and conduct all of our rituals “skyclad;” which is neo-
Pagan terminology for in the nude. I have likewise attended a
number of Pagan festivals at which there is a considerable amount
of both male and female nudity. I have spent hours on end at
these festivals dancing around bonfires with both men and women
in varying stages of undress, including total nudity. Men and
women likewise share communal showers at these festivals. If I
were truly “phallophobic” I would not be a member of the
“ . 1 ! who among the critics of the
postoperative women only policy is going to
volunteer to be the sergeant-at-arms who has
to tell the preoperative woman who has just
paid several hundred dollars to attend and to
travel to this conference that she canft talk
about a particular issue that is relevant to her
during the workshops because it is outside the
48
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
particular coven that I am a member of, nor would I have
continued to attended these Pagan festivals year after year.
I’ m aware that it sounds like a very facile cliche to say that
some of my best friends are preoperative transsexual women, but I
can in fact truthfully say that one of my two very closest friends
in the world is a preoperative transsexual woman. I recently spent
a week camping out in the woods with this woman, and not only
did we share a tent, but also a bed, for that entire week. Another
of my very closet friends over the last five years had surgery only
within the last four months. Both of these women are also aware
that I wholeheartedly support the postoperative women only
policy of the NWC and that my support for it has nothing to do
with thinking that they are or were not real women, or that I feel
that I am somehow superior to them, or that I feel that I can not
learn anything from them, or that I “find the sight of pre-op
morphology to be distressing,” or that I “can’t stand to be in the
presence of unoperated on women,” or that I “see them as six feet
tall walking penises"* or that 1 am on a “high horse.” 1 do not
shun preoperative women and I’m not afraid of them or of
penises. Clearly, the allegation of “phallophobia” simply fails
to withstand sustained scrutiny; there is no way that I can
accurately be described as being “phallophobic.” Using the same
kind of logic that characterizes me as “phallophobic,” I could with
just as much validity make the accusation that since the critics of
NWC’s policy seem to believe that it is never acceptable or
appropriate to discriminate against someone simply because that
person has a penis, that they must therefore be phallophilic.
However, I will freely and readily admit that I don’t
particularly like male genitalia either, and that I do sometimes
appreciate being with other women in situations involving casual
nudity that are free of male genitalia, as do quite a few other
women, particularly lesbians, but also heterosexual and bisexual
women. This does not make either them or me “phallophobic” in
any way. The desire to occasionally be with only other persons
like oneself, however that is defined, does not necessarily translate
into disdain for persons who are different, or feelings of
superiority toward them, or an irrational fear of them, or anything
of the sort. It is a natural human inclination that is common to
every possible categorization of people in the world.
If Riki Anne or Denise were to make the same accusation of
“phallophobia” against a group of nontranssexual women who
occasionally get together for situations involving casual nudity,
the extraordinarily condescending and sexist assumptions
underlying such an accusation would be immediately apparent to
anyone with even a modicum of feminist consciousness. Such an
accusation would sound like something that one would expect to
emanate from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. So why should this
same accusation be any less condescending or sexist when it is
directed toward a group of transsexual women? Unless Rilri Anne
and Denise are willing to make this same allegation against
nontranssexual women, they are in effect saying that
* unsubstantiated allegation against supporters of NWC policy
made by Denise Norris in letter to NWC membership dated 18
July 1994
postoperative transsexual women are somehow “less than”
nontranssexual women. And who are Riki Anne and Denise
going to accuse next of “phallophobia,” and tell to “get over it?”
Lesbians? Rape victims? Incest survivors?
Critics of the NWC policy also engage in complete and utter
distortion of reality by claiming that the women who support this
policy do so for the same reasons that some nontranssexual
women give to justify the exclusion of transsexual women from
the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. I have never heard any
of the women who support the NWC policy give as their reasons
for doing so any of these reasons that they are accused of. I have
never heard a single one of these women ever express the
sentiment that they feel “unsafe” around preoperative women, or
that they consider them inferior. Nor have I ever heard any of
them characterize preoperative women as having “male energy,” or
say that their presence would prevent them from speaking and
acting freely. And I most certainly have never heard any of them
say that “the live penis monster would get” them or anything
even remotely like that.
Essentially, what the critics of the NWC policy have done is
invented reasons as to why they think the preoperative women
only policy exists, attributed them to its supporters, and then
have attempted to discredit them by attacking the reasons they
have attributed to them, when in fact none of those reasons have
anything to do with the real reasons for the existence of the policy
or characterize the attitudes of its supporters in any way. What
the critics of the NWC policy have done is to take these two
situations and decide that because they are similar, that they must
therefore be exactly the same. This is like saying that because
both horses and cows have four legs that there is no difference
between them. However, these two situations are truly, just as
Riki Ane says, like comparing alligators and crocodiles. They
may look the same, and most people probably can’t tell them
apart, but there really and truly is a difference between them.
For postoperative transsexual women to have an event that is
specifically for themselves only is not the equivalent of
nontranssexual women excluding transsexual women from
MWMF, not because of who is doing it, but because NWC and
MWMF are two very fundamentally different kinds of events, and
the kinds of discrimination practiced by these events is likewise
fundamentally different. All discrimination is not equal and neither
is all discrimination unjustified, oppressive or wrong.
Denise Norris has argued that it is not the size or function of
the event that matters, but that only the reasons for exclusion
matter. However, identical forms of exclusion have totally
different effects and take on totally different meanings in different
contexts. If a group of lesbian women of color decide to form an
organization that is for themselves only, and to exclude white
women from it, that has quite different effects and meanings than
does a group of lesbians deciding to form a lesbian community
center and then excluding women of color from it, even though
both groups are practicing discrimination on the basis of skin
color. The context in which exclusion occurs clearly does make
adifferenoe.
49
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
ftutumn 1994
The kind of exclusion practiced by MWMF is discrimination
by a majority against a minority (and an extremely small one at
hat) within itself; whereas, the NWC’s policy is an example of a
minority discriminating against the majority of a population that
it is a part of. These are clearly not equivalent. The former has
the effect of marginalizing a particular group; whereas the later
does not. As Kate Bomstein pointed out in my interview with
her in issue # 5 of TransSisters, exclusion and oppression are not
synonymous. This is not to say that they are mutually exclusive
either; exclusion sometimes clearly is oppression. But exclusion
is not oppression if it does not have the effect of marginalizing,
disempowering or disenfranchising someone else in some way.
MWMF s “womyn bom womyn” only policy clearly does
oppress transsexual womyn because it singles them out for
exclusion, thereby pushing them outside the mainstream of the
lesbian/feminist community and into its margins. However,
NWC’s postoperative women only policy does not have the same
effect on preoperative transsexuals because preoperative
transsexuals are still the majority of the transsexual community.
A minority can not marginalize a majority; only a majority can
marginalize a minority.
Denise Norris has also argued that marginalization is not
merely a question of absolute numbers, but that it is a question of
relative empowerment that is the determining factor, and I do not
disagree. But while it is undoubtedly true that the average
postoperative transsexual enjoys a greater degree of status and
personal empowerment in society at large than does the average
preoperative transsexual, it does not therefore follow that
postoperative transsexuals are collectively more empowered than
are preoperative transsexuals within the transsexual community
itself. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. Preoperative
transsexuals and their issues dominate every transsexual support
group and organization in existence. Transsexual/transgender
publications and events devote inordinately more space and time
to preoperative concerns than to postoperative concerns. In fact,
it is very rare indeed that one ever encounters anything at all in
any transsexual/transgender publication or at any
transsexual/transgender event that specifically addresses the needs
of postoperative transsexual women. Organizations that serve the
needs of transsexual persons generally offer little or nothing at all
to postoperative transsexuals. I believe that this is actually a
more significant reason than the desire to assimilate that
postoperative transsexuals generally drop out of the community
and fade into the woodwork. I personally found this to be the
case myself and I do not believe that my experience is unique.
Several years ago I quit attending my local transsexual
support group, of which I was one of only two postoperative
persons attending, precisely because of this reason. I was totally
unable to find the understanding of my postoperative issues and
the support that I needed from that group of people. And
although I am not claiming that this is true of all preoperative
women, I found most of them to be in a totally different mindset
than I because they were totally focused on transition issues, and
even that a great many of them would actually shut out from their
minds altogether anything that might contradict their
preconceptions of what postoperative life was going to be like for
them, and would thus not even allow themselves to acknowledge
the legitimacy of the issues that I would raise. Essentially, my
issues were either ignored, trivialized or discounted altogether. I
have also had other postoperative women tell me that they have
had very similar experiences.
It was for this very reason— that postoperative women so
frequently are unable to find within the transsexual community
the support and the services that they need to deal with their
issues and concerns— that the New Woman Conference was created
in the first place. It was created to fill an existing vacuum within
the transsexual community. It is the only thing in the world that
postoperative transsexual women have ever had that is uniquely
their own, and it does not disempower, disenfranchise,
marginalize or otherwise oppress preoperative women, or
“partition” the community, in any way. If the smear-campaign
that has been conducted against NWC succeeds in destroying it, as
it appears there is a strong possibility that it may do, the cause of
diversity within the transsexual community will not have been
enhanced, but rather curtailed, and the entire community' will be
poorer for it.
Denise Norris has also argued that the distinction between
preoperative and postoperative transsexuals is not a legitimate one
because it is one that has been imposed upon us by the medical
profession, and that to accept this distinction necessarily means
that one must accept all of the various negative characterizations
of transsexuals that are promulgated by the medical profession.
However, as with previous such allegations, sustained
scrutiny of the facts once again demonstrates that this is clearly
not the case. First of all, the terms “preoperative” and
“postoperative” were not specifically formulated to apply to
transsexuals. These are common medical terms that are used to
refer to all surgical patients. Furthermore, whether or not one
accepts these terms, there are still some of us who have undergone
surgery and some of us who have not; and these are
unquestionably very distinct experiences. Rejecting these terms
will not change that. But even more significantly, among the
supporters of the NWC policy are some of the women who are
the most outspokenly critical of the medical profession in the
entire transsexual community.* Once again, the allegations
against supporters of the NWC policy are clearly contradicted by
the facts. Furthermore, if one accepts Denise’s argument that we
should reject something just because it was created by the medical
profession, then it necessarily follows that we should likewise not
only reject the term “transsexual,” but that we should also even
reject sex-change surgery itself. Likewise, according to Denise’s
logic, a transgenderist could with equal validity charge that the
mere act of choosing to undergo sex-change surgery upholds the
medical definition of transgender behavior as something that is
*(c.f., Anne Ogbom’s “Orgasmic Function in Postoperative
Transsexual Women” and Margaret Deirdre O’ Haiti gan’s “Surgical
Roulette” in TransSisters # 3 and Rachel Pollack’s “Infinite
Length: Impressions erf the 13th. International Symposium of the
Harry Benjamin Association” in TransSisters # 4).
50
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
“sick” and that needs to be fixed, as some of them actually da
Critics of the NWC policy have also had to resort to outright
distortion of the facts in order to equate it with MWMF’s
“womyn bom womyn” only policy. Riki Anne Wilchins claims
that MWMF does not claim to “attempt to be all things to all
women.” MWMF does indeed claim to do exactly that; there are
so many references in MWMF literature to it being an event for
“all womyn” and to it being an event honoring and celebrating the
diversity of the womyn’ s community that I couldn’t even begin to
list them all. Riki Anne has obviously not read the festival
catalog, which even contains a very lengthy section entitled
“Honoring Our Diversity,” or else she could not honestly make
such a statement
Honoring and celebrating diversity is a necessary and essential
part of any thriving community. However, honoring diversity is
not the only legitimate reason for people to gather together.
Equally important to any thriving community is the opportunity
for the various minority subgroups which
comprise it to gather together to celebrate
their uniquenesses, to focus on the concerns
that are unique to them, and to be able to
limit those gatherings to the persons who
comprise those particular minority
subgroups.
NWC is clearly an event of the later
kind. It is a specialized event. I will also
freely and readily admit to being the person
whom Christine Beatty referred to in her
article who told her that “specialized (not
‘special’) events are okay.” I stand behind
that statement one hundred percent, and I.’ II
even say it again. Specialized events ae
okay. And not only are they okay, but the
more of them the better. Not every event
within the women’s community has to be
open to all women; not every event within the lesbian
community has to be open to all lesbians; and not every event
within the transsexual community has to be open to all
transsexuals.
By a “specialized event,” I mean one that addresses only the
issues and concerns of a particular minority subgroup and which
restricts participation in it to that particular group of people.
Rather than diminish diversity, the number of different specialized
events within a community actually serves to enhance the degree
of diversity within it. It is not merely the number of different
kinds of individuals within a community that determines its
degree of diversity, but also the number of different kinds of
organizations and events addressing the issues and concerns of
those different kinds of people that determine its degree of
diversity. A community with a lot of different kinds of
specialized events is a healthy and a thriving community. But the
logical conclusion of the reasoning of the critics of NWC’s policy
is that it is not acceptable or appropriate for any kind of
specialized events to exist within the transsexual community.
Why should this be so? Because we are a relatively small
community? Exactly how big does a community have to be for it
to be acceptable tor it to have specialized events?
There are in fact a number of different minority subgroups
within the lesbian and women’s communities, most of which do
not include me, that have their own specialized events to focus on
their specific issues and concerns, and that restrict participation in
them to persons belonging to those particular subgroups. This is
perfectly legitimate and appropriate and does not marginalize or
oppress me in any way. I even find it perfectly acceptable and
appropriate for a group of women who believe that transsexual
women are not real women to get together and to exclude
transsexual women from participation. There is at least one
national event of this kind that I am aware of that does exactly
that, and 1 have no problem with it doing so, and I even think that
transsexual women should stay away from it and leave it alone.
However, this kind of discrimination is clearly not the same as
the kind of discrimination practiced by MWMF, where the
exclusionary policy was formulated by an elite cadre within the
festival hierarchy and does not reflect the opinions of the vast
majority of the women who attend the festival, while
simultaneously claiming to be an event for all women and to
function according to feminist principles and process.
There are even a number of specialized events and areas
focusing on the needs and concerns of particular minority
subgroups within the boundaries of MWMF itself. There are
separatist and over 50s camping areas; there is an over 40s tent
and a Women of Color only sanctuary. There are individual
workshops that restrict participation in them to women belonging
to particular minority subgroups. According to the same logic
that critics of the NWC policy use to claim that postoperative
women should not be allowed to have their own space within the
transsexual community, it logically follows that these particular
subgroups within the women’s community should also not be
allowed to have their own spaces at MWMF either. I assume that
in order to remain ideologically consistent, that when transsexual
women are allowed to attend MWMF, that the critics of NWC’s
policy will turn their attention and energies toward preventing
Some of the participants in the third annual New Woman Conference;
Guerneville, California; September 1993 (1-r): Lori Killough, Bonnie
Sullivan, Wendi Kaiser, Rica Fredrickson, Anne Ogborn, Susan
Kimberly, Rachel Pollack, Jennifer Freeman
51
Issue # 6
*. Tran&Sisters: the Journal of transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
these particular subgroups from having their own spaces too.
(Riki Anne has in fact told me that she does not believe that
women of color should be allowed to have a space that is
exclusively their own inside MWMF because it might create a
hierarchy based on skin color. I can’t wait to hear her tell this to
Amoja Three Rivers.)
All of the women who have expressed disagreement with
NWC’s postoperative women only policy in this issue have also
characterized it as “separatist.” This reflects an obvious ignorance
of exactly what is meant by the term “separatist.” Separatism, at
least as it is defined and practiced within the lesbian/feminist
community, consists of an entire lifestyle that attempts to exclude
men and anyone or anything perceived as male totally from every
aspect of it all of the time to the greatest extent possible.
According to the logic of those who have characterized NWC as
“separatist,” it necessarily follows that MWMF is also a
separatist event and that all the women who support it being a
women-only space (regardless of how that term is defined)
likewise are separatists. This argument, in fact, would mean that
any event that is intended for any one group of people at all is a
separatist event, which is clearly not the case. Women-only space
is not the same as separatism, and neither is it “separatist” for
postoperative transsexual women to go off to be by themselves
for one weekend per year. For NWC to be a “separatist” event, it
would have to promote a philosophy of totally excluding
preoperative transsexuals from every aspect of one’s life and of
having nothing whatsoever to do with them, something that is
clearly not the case. In fact, among the women who have attended
NWC and support its postoperative women only policy are a great
many who have practically dedicated their entire lives to bettering
the lives of all transsexuals, including some of the most
prominent transsexual activists in the entire community. To
characterize any of these women as “separatist” or “elitist” is not
merely demagoguery, but it is clearly absurd These women’s
records of activism on behalf of the entire transsexual community
speak for themselves and dearly belie any such characterizations.
Christine Beatty alleges that NWC’s postoperative women
only policy' was dedded “without determining how die majority of
attendees might feel about it.” This is also absolutely untrue.
This issue is something that has been discussed at every
conference, and it has always been the overwhelming sentiment of
those in attendance that NWC should remain for postoperative
transsexual women only. There is absolutely no way that this
dedsion can accurately be described as “autocratic” or “dictatorial.”
Lynn Walker has compared postoperative transsexual women
dedding whether or not preoperative transsexual women should be
allowed to attend NWC to white men dedding whether or not
women should be granted the right to vote and whether African-
Americans should be able to serve in a racially integrated military.
This is an inherently fallacious comparison. The right to vote
and to racial equality are basic, inherent civil rights. Clearly, all
dtizens are entitled to have a voice in determining questions erf
basic, inherent dvil rights. But we are not talking about basic,
inherent dvil rights here. The right to attend a specialized event
is not a basic, inherent dvil right.
In the case of all specialized events, it is only the persons
whom that specialized event is intended to serve who have the
right to decide who gets to attend that event. If women decide to
hold an event that is spedfically defined as existing for the
express purpose of addressing the needs and concerns of women,
then it is women, and women only, who have the absolute, sole
and exclusive right to dedde who should be allowed to attend that
event. If lesbians dedde to hold an event that is specifically
defined as existing for the express purpose of addressing the needs
and concerns of lesbians, then it is lesbians, and lesbians only,
who have the absolute, sole and exclusive right to decide who
should be allowed to attend that event. And if postoperative
transsexual women decide to hold an event that is spedfically
defined as existing for the express purpose of addressing the needs
and concerns of postoperative transsexual women— as even the
critics of NWC’s exclusionary’ policy concede there is a need for-
then it is postoperative transsexual women, and postoperative
transsexual women only, who have the absolute, sole and
exclusive right to determine who should be allowed to attend that
event. If NWC were defined as existing to address the needs and
concerns of all transsexual women, then of course, preoperative
transsexual women should also have an equal voice in determining
who should be allowed to attend it, but it is not. NWC is
specifically defined as existing to address the needs and concerns of
postoperative transsexual women only, and therefore, it is
postoperative transsexual women, and absolutely no one else,
who have the absolute, sole and exclusive right to determine who
should be allowed to attend it. For preoperative transsexual
women to claim that they have some right to decide who should
be allowed to attend the New Woman Conference is the equivalent
of heterosexual women claiming that they have some right to
decide who should be allowed to attend the National Lesbian
Conference.
Christine Beatty also alleges that the “post-ops only aspect erf
this conference helps perpetuate the surgery -equals-success myth
prevalent among most transsexuals.” This is also absolutely
untrue. NWC takes no position on the validity or worth of
individuals who choose not to seek the surgical path, but only
affirms the validity of that path for those who do choose it and
provides a means of celebrating the most significant rite of
passage upon it. Nor does the NWC policy in any w-ay imply
that surgery is the end of the process either, in fact, the mere
existence of the conference affirms that it is not. It merely
affirms that completion of surgery is the most significant
milestone along that path and provides a means to celebrate it and
to explore what directions are available to those of us who have
chosen it afterwards. This is something that those who do choose
surgery deserve to have and have every right to do.
For most erf our lives we have lived in a state of our minds
and our bodies being in intense and painful conflict with each
other, and we have been made to feel enormous guilt and shame
for feeling this way. We have had to overcome tremendous
obstacles to achieve a state of consonance between our minds and
our bodies, and we have had to endure tremendous stigmatization
for having made that choice in addition to the numerous sacrifices
52
Issue # 6
‘ TransSisters : the Journal of ‘Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
necessary to achieve it NWC is the first event in history and the
only event in the world that exists for the express purpose of
affirming the validity of that decision and celebrating that
particular rite of passage. This is something that is not only
appropriate, but is essential towards the eventual elimination of
the stigmatization of that choice. It is one of the best things to
ever come into existence for transsexual women.
Riki Anne’s mocking caricaturization of the religious
significance that some postoperative women attribute to this
particular rite of passage is obviously intended to demonstrate to
the rest of us how clever she is, but in actuality it really only
serves to demonstrate her profound ignorance and her narrow-
minded disrespect for the rights of others to hold differing
opinions. If Riki Anne and other critics of NWC’s policy do not
appreciate the religious dimensions of sex-change surgery, that is
definitely their right, but that does not give them the right to
prevent others from exploring and celebrating them in whatever
way they deem appropriate, and it is certainly contrary to the
principle of “unity” which they so loudly proclaim to uphold to
denigrate those who do so.
Critics of the postoperative women only policy also claim
that the inclusion of preoperative women in this event would not
detract from these proceedings or change its agenda in any way. I
do not see how it could not do otherwise. If a group of
postoperative women gather together for the express purpose of
celebrating the rite of passage of having completed sex-change
surgery, how could that possibly not negatively impact upon the
feelings of persons who are present, but who have not completed
that process? How could they not help but feel that they are not
fully a part of the celebratory aspects of that event? And how
could their feelings not in turn affect the feelings of those who
have dome so, especially in a group as small as this? Clearly, the
maximization of the celebratory aspects of this conference is
dependent upon all of those present having completed this
particular rite of passage. This is what supporters of the NWC
policy are talking about when they refer to the “magic” of the
event. Nor would excluding preoperative women from the
celebratory aspects of the conference be a feasible option because
those aspects can not be clearly separated from other aspects of the
conference. Furthermore, any attempt to do so would only serve
to exacerbate any negative feelings on the part of those persons
who have not completed surgery, which would, of course, only
further detract from the atmosphere of the entire conference. And
as for the agenda, who among the critics of the postoperative
women only policy is going to volunteer to be the sergeant-at-
arms who has to tell the preoperative woman who has just paid
several hundred dollars to attend and to travel to this conference
that she can’t talk about a particular issue that is relevant to her
during the workshops because it is outside the focus of the
conference? And how is that going to make everyone else feel
when someone has to do this?
As Denise Norris herself pointed out, “In the same way it’s
very difficult, if not impossible, for nontranssexuals to understand
the transsexual experience, people who have not gone through
surgery are unable to truly understand the surgical experience and
it’s ramifications.” How then can she realistically assure the
participants of NWC that the presence of persons who are “unable
to truly understand the surgical experience and it’s ramifications”
will not adversely affect its proceedings in any way? Denise has
even admitted that NWC will not be the same event if it is opened
up to preoperative transsexuals. So how can she assure those
persons who value this event for what it presently is that it will
continue to meet their needs or provide to them what it is
presently providing? The fact of the matter is simply that there is
absolutely no way that she can do so.
And if NWC were opened up to preoperative transsexual
women, it would most assuredly be opening itself up to persons
who are indeed “unable to truly understand the surgical experience
and its ramifications.” There are a great many persons who
consider themselves to be preoperative transsexuals who later
decide that surgery is not appropriate for them. There have even
been instances of individuals changing their minds on the very day
that their surgeries were scheduled to take place. In fact, one can
not even really be absolutely certain that surgery is an appropriate
choice for oneself until after one actually undergoes it. Denise
even admits that she wanted to attend NWC at a time when there
was “still a good healthy deal of doubt” about whether or not she
would undergo surgery. I can not understand how anyone can fail
to see that the presence erf persons who are still in the process of
discovering whether or not surgery is appropriate for them would
detract from a conference that is specifically intended to celebrate
having completed that process and to explore how to get on with
one’s life now that that particular milestone has been achieved.
And might not attendance at NWC unduly influence such persons
to undergo surgery when if fact that might not be an appropriate
choice for them, and their lives might be made immeasurably
worse for doing so?
Furthermore, if NWC were to be opened up to preoperative
women, then why not also open it up to transgenderists? And if
NWC should likewise be open to transgenderists, then why not
also open it up to crossdressers? Some of them consider
themselves to be women. Why would excluding any of them be
okay? Don’t we have something to learn from them also? And
doesn’t excluding them also “partition” the community and “limit
diversity?”
I wholeheartedly agree with Christine that there is a definite
need for a conference that is open to all transsexuals; that is also a
necessary element of affirming our diversity and building bonds
between the various subgroups that comprise the transsexual
community. Perhaps the most valuable thing to come out of
this entire controversy is the recognition that there is a need for a
conference that specifically addresses the concerns of transsexuals
and that is open to all transsexuals. But the energies of those
who criticize NWC for being something less than this would be
far better expended on creating such a conference, rather than
attacking— and in the process nearly destroying— NWC for not
being all things to all transsexuals. But even if such a conference
were to exist, each of the various minority subgroups that
comprise the transsexual community— whether that be
postoperative transsexuals, preoperative transsexuals, female-to-
53
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1394
male transsexuals, transsexual lesbians,
transsexual gay men, transsexual
feminists, transsexuals of color, bisexual
transsexuals, or any of the other various
minority subgroups within it— would still
be entitled to have its own space and its
own event to explore, affirm and to
celebrate its own uniqueness. There is in
fact being planned at the present time a
female-to-male transsexual conference that
will be restricted to female-to-male
transsexuals to take place next year. Do
the critics of NWC’s postoperative
women only policy intend to likewise
attack that conference for its exclusionary
policy? And if not, why not? How is it
any different? Isn’t it also a case of
transsexuals excluding other transsexuals?
Why would it be any less “separatist” or
“elitist” for female-to-male transsexuals
to exclude male-to-female transsexuals
than for postoperative transsexual women
to exclude preoperative transsexual
women? Doesn’t this also “partition” the
community and “limit diversity”?
Applying the same logic by which
Christine characterizes NWC as a
“separatist” and an “elitist” event,
crossdressers and transgenderists could with equal validity
characterize the transsexual conference which she sees a need for as
“separatist” and “elitist” and claim that its raison d'etre is
phallophobia. After all, aren’t transsexuals more empowered and
don’t they have more status than either crossdressers or
transgenderists? And isn’t the entire so-called “transgender
community” also a small, disempowered population that is
likewise in need of unity? And wouldn’t such a conference
likewise “partition” the community, not according to surgical
status, but according to some other criteria? And wouldn’t it
likewise “limit diversity?”
I believe that a lot of the resentment directed toward NWC
has come about as the result of its unfortunate choice of name. I
think a lot of preoperative transsexual women have interpreted
this name to imply that they are not women, and that a lot of
misunderstanding could have been avoided if NWC would have
simply called itself something like the Postoperative Transsexual
Women’s Conference to begin with. I do not believe that this
was the intention of the founders of NWC and that it would be an
appropriate thing for NWC to change its name to more accurately
reflect its nature, but to change its exclusionary policy would not
merely be folly, but would be disastrous for the event.
In conclusion, I would only like to say that I applaud the
organizers of the NWC for not caving in to the unjustified
demands of those who have tried to force it to be something that
it was never intended to be and for having the forbearance, the
dignity and the courage to withstand the unrelentingly unfair
Gabriel (and Chelsea)
photo by Fran Windier
criticism, the outright misrepresentation
of their beliefs, the impugning of their
character and their motives, the vicious
name-calling and the snide, sarcastic
ridicule that has been directed at them.
Davina Anne Gabriel is a forty year-old,
fifteen years postoperative transsexual
lesbian feminist Witch, the founder,
editor and publisher of TransSistert:
the Journal of Transsexual
Feminism, a former editor of two queer
newspapers in Kansas City, Missouri,
and a long time activist for queer,
feminist, transsexual and other causes.
She has been involved, for all three years
of its existence, in the protest against the
Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival’s
“womyn born womyn” only policy and
was one of four transsexual lesbians
expelled from that event for violating that
policy in 1993. She lives in Kansas
City, Missouri.
Preserve It for Posterity!
Books, magazines, newsletters,
journal articles, videotapes, films and
newspaper clippings about
transsexuality, crossdressing and
transgenderism are wanted for
the newly formed
National
Transgender Library
and Archive
Materials can be shipped via U.S. Post
Office to: AEGIS; P.O. Box 33724;
Decatur, Georgia 30033 or by U .P.S. or
other private shippers to: AEGIS;
1898 Chisholm Court; Tucker, Georgia
30084
Please contact us before shipping large
amounts of materials. We can be reached
most evenings at (404) 939-0244
BA
Issue # 6
TransSisters: the journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1394
HI-
Gn 11,
ne.'zcOritne
J life.
I knou This is
5U??05ED TO BE
GODDESS KNOWS UE
ineed it.
5UT JUST FOR
TOIUIO-HT , I (JO^OOR
fF « could t -IAVE '■**■
YOU SEE, BETWEEN Sopit
HEAVY-DUTY A WTl DEPRESS 4 NTS
add sone left over stuff
FF.on a pian \ shouldn't still
LOVE, I'VE BEEN PRETTY SCARCD
TOMICrHT.
$UT A 000 o FRie*>°
helped me understand
^ FEW -THIIU6-S.
r\ sister, no all senses.
Forget easy
ONE WHO SEES
the BEAUTY
10 US Aut.
THESf OAVS.
I've BEEN Hurt
PRCTTV RAD.
SHOCKS P»E STRENGTHS
I FORGET I MADE.
I KNOW I'UE HURT
OTHERS AS IOELL.—
ONE *M PARTICULAR.
THAT DIDN'T TWE IT R»WT
For mm to hurt me.t *oocm.
AWD l HOPE HE FORGIVES, AS I'm
TRYING TO. BUT IT'S SO HARD.
BECAUSE
NOT BECAUSE I'tf
TRAW56EXUA-, OR B15EWAL.
OR A IJOHAN. ORBECAOSE
I HAoC ATTENTION DEFICIT
DISORDER.
IT'S BECAUSE I'n HUMAN-
WE always seem
To LEAVE THAT OC/T
OF THESE Dtstussiows,
YOU AUD I .
SO GIVE me
this owe , okay?
I HAVE A FCELIWC- THAT
IF UE All did that at once,
HOWEVER BRIEFLY,
we'd BECOME SO STRONC-
Nc owe Gould
Ever hurt
CAIU UE STOP FIGHTING-
ABOUT lMO said luhATAiud
UUO's LOV'HUG WHO AHD
WHAT THAT PAAKES THE «T
CAR) WE JUST SEE THE BeautY uu
EACH OTHER,
JUST FOR ToiUlGril?
1 KNOW IT'S CoRJUY BUT HOW ABOUT /T?
US
Again.
THHUKS
For. ustejoifjg.
YOU GAD Go QflCK
To ARGUING- Now.
IF Turn's UJHAT-
Yov R£>m.v ujawT;
PS- |'Ll BE
Peeling- zerxez A*>t>
'i/L/rUC* — J
s
Diana Green is
a forty year
old, five years
postoperaive
b i s e x u a l
woman and a
resident of
Minnecpolis,
Minnesota.
During her
commercial art
education, she
was an
apprentice to
Reed Waller,
creator of
Omaha, the
Cat Dancer. Her writings, illustrations and
cartoons have appeared in Animania, The
Madison Edge , Feminist Voices and Gay
Comics.
Diana Green
photo by Pauline Johnson
55
Issue # 6
‘TransSisters: the Journal of Transsexual feminism
Autumn 1994
Get Submissive l
TransSisters welcomes submissions of original articles,
interviews, reviews, position statements, press releases, edito-
rials, research reports, fiction, poetry, artwork or photography
dealing with issues of transsexuality and feminism.
Submissions dealing with controversial issues or taking con-
troversial stances (short of character assassination) including
erotica are especially encouraged. Although the primary focus
of TransSisters is on issues of concern to male-to-female
transsexuals, material related to female-to-male concerns will
also be considered for publication. Material that has been
published elsewhere is also acceptable, but please indicate
where it has been previously published if it has been.
All submissions are subject to editing by the
Domineditrix. Please enclose a brief biographical summary
(two or three sentences) with your submission. Submissions
written under pseudonyms are acceptable.
TransSisters reserves the right to reprint all submissions.
All other rights revert to the individual authors after publica-
tion. TransSisters also reserves the right to refuse publication
of any submissions which do not meet our editorial or aesthet-
ic standards or which are contrary to our goals and purposes.
Manuscripts should be double-spaced or neatly hand
written. Please number your pages and put your name and the
title of the work at the top of every page. Please submitt your
work
on 3.5 floppy disksin either Macintosh or DOS ASCII formats
if at all possible.
Artwork must be camera ready. Please enclose a self-ad-
dressed stamped envelope if you want your manuscript, disk
or artwork returned.
Contributors are also welcome and encouraged to submit
photographs (preferably black & white) of themselves along
with their submissions, but please indicate the name of the
photographer if you do so so that we can give proper photo
credit. Negatives are also acceptable in lieu of prints, and will
be returned if you provide a s.as.e.
The deadline for submissions of all sorts is six weeks
prior to publication of the next issue. Those dates are as fol-
lows: Winter November 20; Spring: February 18; Summer
May 20; Autumn: August 20.
Contributors receive a free copy of the issue in which
their work appears. Please address all submissions to:
TransSisters ; Davma Anne Gabriel, editor; 4004 Troost
Avenue; Kansas City, Missouri 641 10. Submissions can also
be sent by fax to (816)753-7816, but you must call first, as
there must be someone here to receive your fax.
(F
TransSisters Advertising ‘Rates
Description
Double page centerfold
Back cover ...........................
Inside back cover full page .
Inside back cover half page
Inside back cover quarter page
Full page
Horizontal
Vertical
Price
$70.00
•atMaMt
aaaaaaaaaaaaa»aa#»#aa#aaaaaaaaaaa»aa#aaaaaaaaaaa»a>aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaa^
(16” x 9.5”)
( 7.5” x 10”) $60.00
(7.5” x 10”) $50.00
(7.5” x 5”) (3.5” x lO’O $30.00
(7.5” x 2.5”) (3.5” x 5”) $20.00
.~(7.5” x 9i”)«M.M»..«„ $45.00
Half page
Quarter page
Eighth page
aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaa»»a»Maaa»aaaaaaaa#a«aaaaaa»taaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa**Maavaaaaaa (7.5” x 4.75”) •aataaaaaaaaaaaaa (3.5” x 9.5”) aaaaaaaaaaaaa* $25.00
(7.5” x 2-J75”) (3.5” x 4.75”) $15.00
(3.5” x 2J75”) *aaaaa*ta***aaaaM*aaaaa«ao*****a**aaa***tM*ti«taa $10.00
All Ads Must Be Prepaid and Camera Ready
Deadlines;
Winter; November 31; Spring: February 28; Summer: May 31; Autumn: August 31
Please Make All Checks Payable to Davina Anne Gabriel (TJ.S. funds only)
TransSisters reserves the right to refuse publication of any advertisement which it
considers to be in poor taste, deceptive or contrary to its goals and purposes.
J)
56
What is the New
Woman Conference ?
The New Woman Conference is a small
group of postoperative male-to-female
transsexual persons. The NWCs primary
function is to conduct an annual retreat at
which those who have recently had surgery
and those whose surgery was years or de-
cades ago come together. The experience is
spiritual — some would say magical — as
women from all across the United States
enjoy the rustic setting with others who
have shared their marvelous joumies.
(Male and female partners are welcome.)
The Conference culminates with a ritu-
al in which the attendees celebrate that
which they all share — their blood sacrifice.
For Information About the New Woman
Conference, write to:
N.W.C.
P.O.Box67
South Berwick , Maine 03908
Subscribe to:
Rites of Passage
The Newsletter of the
New Woman Conference
$12 for four issues.
Send check or money
order to:
N.W.C.
P.O. Box 67
South Berwick ,
Maine 03908
Announcing . . .
Brand New!
Identity Management in Transsexualism
A Practical Guide to Managing Identity on Paper
by Dallas Denny
Now, at last, there is a resource for transgendered persons who are changing their names and identities. This is the only
comprehensive guide to managing identity change for the transsexual person. Denny shares her personal experience in
e paper trail we all leave behind us. She gives solid advice and explicit directions where possible. An extra
Transeende
mo
bonus
ransgender Identity Card. Just add your photo and personal data. Equally useful for FT \
persons
-°v
Qi Yes! I want to purchase Dallas Denny 's Identity Management in Transsexualism.
I’m enclosing check or money order for $15.00 + $3 S&H.
Name
This advertisement © 1994 by AEGIS
The American Educational Gender Information Service. Inc.
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.
AEGIS
P.O. Bax 33724
Decatur, GA 30033-0724
Address
City
State Zip
Shining Woman Tarot is a sacred divination
pack, awakening in the reader a sense of spiritual
power and beauty. It is the result of decades of
work with the Tarot, myth, dreams and the spiritual
realities of the imagination. Its roots are in tradi-
tional Tarot, but it is also a radical departure.
The images, painted by the author herself, are
drawn from many cultures and traditions, ranging
over six continents and tens of thousands of years.
The names and symbolism of the major and minor
Arcana have been amended to reflect this — the four
suits are Trees, Rivers, Birds and Stones, while the
Court cards are now Place, Knower, Gift and
Speaker.
Unique in its linking of the Tarot to tribal and
prehistoric art. Shining Woman Tarot opens up
many new possibilities for the use of the Tarot
today, and provides a valuable tool for personal de-
velopment
Rachel Pollack has worked with the Tarot for over twenty years and has written many books on the
subject, including Seventy-Eight Degrees of Wisdom and The New Tarot. Her work has received wide
praise for its innovative and sensitive approach to die Tarot
"This work is about bringing the sacred into daily life. It calls attention to the awe surrounding us.
Its lack of sexism is appreciated — and the art grows on you. The Shining Woman tarot is a tool worth
having." — Melissa Ellen Penn, Green Egg
Published by The Aquarian Press, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers; Hammersmith, London.
Copyright 1992 by Rachel Pollack.
4
“Christine Beatty writes with the authority of one who
has not only lived but mastered her material.” — Danielle
Willis
“They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Well,
this book could get you into trouble for the rest of your
life. What are you waiting for?” — Pat Califia
“... good family values.” — Alex Bennett speaking of the
author in a 1992 KITS radio interview. (I think he was
joking.)
available for
$8.50 per copy
(postpaid) from:
Glamazon Press
P.O. Box 423602
San Francisco,
California 94142
Misery Loves Company
Christine Beatty
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11